Observational studyBMC anesthesiology2025
Reliability of nociceptive monitors vs. standard practice during general anesthesia: a prospective observational study.
Observational study in BMC anesthesiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 4 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Comparison of Different Objective Nociceptive Measurement Methods During General Anesthesia or Sedation Under Surgery
Visual and Auditory Distraction for the Relief of Pain and Anxiety
Skin Conductance as a Predictor of Spinal Anesthesia-Induced Hypotension in Geriatric Oncology Patients
Comparison of M-TAPA and External Oblique Intercostal Plane Block on Intraoperative Analgesia and Opioid Consumption Guided by Skin Conductance Algesimeter in Laparoscopic Cholecystectomy
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Depth of anesthesia monitoring: Current evidence, clinical impact, and future directions.The Journal of international medical research · 2026Review
- Nociception and pain assessment during suctioning procedures in mechanically ventilated patients in the intensive care unit: A validation study of the Nociception Level index (NOL™).Canadian journal of pain = Revue canadienne de la douleur · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundInadequate or excessive nociceptive control during general anesthesia can result in significant adverse outcomes. Using traditional clinical variables, such as heart rate, systolic blood pressure, and respiratory rate, to assess and manage nociceptive responses is often insufficient and could lead to overtreatment with both anesthetics and opioids. This study evaluated the feasibility and effectiveness of three nociception monitoring techniques Nociception Level Index (NOL), Skin Conductance Algesimeter (SCA) and heart rate monitoring in patients undergoing image-guided, minimally invasive abdominal interventions under general anesthesia.
methodThis prospective observational study collected data from 2022 to 2024. All patients were anesthetized according to the department's routine, and predetermined events were recorded. Two commercially available nociception monitors, the PMD-200 from Medasense (NOL) and PainSensor from MedStorm (SCA), were used, and their data were collected along with various hemodynamic parameters. The three nociception monitoring techniques were compared during predetermined events.
resultA total of 49 patients were included in this study. NOL and SCA demonstrated higher responsiveness than HR for all events except for skin incision. The comparison of the values above and below the threshold for each nociceptive stimulus showed significance for all measurements using the SCA and NOL. However, using HR as a surrogate for nociception with a threshold of a 10% increase from baseline, the difference was significant only at skin incision. There was no variation in the peak values attributable to differences in patients' age. Weight was a significant predictor of the peak NOL values.
conclusionNOL and SCA demonstrated superior sensitivity and responsiveness to nociceptive stimuli compared to HR, effectively detecting significant changes in nociceptive thresholds across various stimuli, although responses during skin incision showed no such advantage.
trial registrationClinical trial - NCT05218551.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.