Summary of findings for the main comparison. Anaesthesia depth monitors (BIS and M‐entropy) versus standard clinical and electronic monitoring.
| Anaesthesia depth monitors (BIS and M‐entropy) compared with standard clinical and electronic monitoring | ||||||
|
Patient or population: patients with prevention of recall of events during surgery Settings: All patients undergoing various surgical procedures in hospitals in Europe/Australia/Asia/Middle East/North America Intervention: anaesthesia depth monitors (BIS, M‐Entropy) Comparison: standard clinical and electronic monitoring | ||||||
| Outcomes | Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI) | Relative effect (95% CI) | No of participants (studies) | Quality of the evidence (GRADE) | Comments | |
| Assumed risk | Corresponding risk | |||||
| Standard clinical and electronic monitoring | Anaesthesia depth monitors | |||||
| Awareness Postoperative interview Follow‐up: 1 to 72 days | 5 per 1000 |
5 per 1000 (3 to 7) |
OR 0.98 (0.59 to 1.62) |
34,744 (9 studies) |
⊕⊕⊝⊝ low1,2 | — |
|
Adverse effects of intraoperative wakefulness and/or postoperative awareness (i.e. post‐traumatic stress syndrome, myocardial infarction, cardiac arrest, etc.) |
— | — | — | — | — | Not defined or not identified |
| *The basis for the assumed risk (e.g. the median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI). BIS: Bispectral Index; CI: confidence interval; OR: odds ratio | ||||||
| GRADE Working Group grades of evidence High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect. Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate. Low quality: Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate. Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estimate. | ||||||
1Inconsistency: downgraded one level for inconsistency of effect. Heterogeneity (I2) was moderate (49%). There were non‐overlapping 95% CIs. 2Imprecision: downgraded one level for imprecision. Although the number of participants was large (34,744), the number of events was small (173) and the upper and lower bounds of the OR 95% CI did not exclude important effects.