Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow E-Letters: Submit a response to the article
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when E-letters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (4)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Disclaimer
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Schneider, G.
Right arrow Articles by Thornton, C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Schneider, G.
Right arrow Articles by Thornton, C.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

British Journal of Anaesthesia, 2003, Vol. 91, No. 6 905-908
© 2003 The Board of Management and Trustees of the British Journal of Anaesthesia


Short Communications

Quality of perioperative AEP—variability of expert ratings

G. Schneider*, W. Nahm, E. F. Kochs, P. Bischoff, C. J. Kalkman, H. Kuppe and C. Thornton

Department of Anaesthesiology, Technische Universität München, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Ismaningerstr. 22, D-81675 Munich, Germany

*Corresponding author. E-mail: gerhard.schneider@lrz.tum.de

Background. Previous studies suggest that auditory evoked potentials (AEP) may be used to monitor anaesthetic depth. However, during surgery and anaesthesia, the quality of AEP recordings may be reduced by artefacts. This can affect the interpretation of the data and complicate the use of the method. We assessed differences in expert ratings of the signal quality of perioperatively recorded AEPs.

Methods. Signal quality of 180 randomly selected AEP, recorded perioperatively during a European multicentre study, was rated independently by five experts as ‘invalid’ (0), ‘poor’ (1), or ‘good’ (2). Average (n=5) quality rating was calculated for each signal. Differences between quality ratings of the five experts were calculated for each AEP: inter-rater variability (IRV) was calculated as the difference between the worst and best classification of a signal.

Results. Average signal quality of 57% of the AEPs was rated as ‘invalid’, 39% as ‘poor’, and only 4% as ‘good’. IRV was 0 in only 6%, 1 in 62%, and 2 in 32% of the AEP, that is in 32% one expert said signal quality was good, whereas a different expert thought the identical signal was invalid.

Conclusions. There is poor agreement between experts regarding the signal quality of perioperatively recorded AEPs and, as a consequence, results obtained by one expert may not easily be reproduced by a different expert. This limits the use of visual AEP analysis to indicate anaesthetic depth and may affect the comparability of AEP studies, where waveforms were analysed by different experts. An objective automated method for AEP analysis could solve this problem.

Br J Anaesth 2003; 91: 905–8


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Br J AnaesthHome page
I. Wenningmann, S. Paprotny, S. Strassmann, R. K. Ellerkmann, B. Rehberg, M. Soehle, and B.W. Urban
Correlation of the A-LineTM ARX index with acoustically evoked potential amplitude
Br. J. Anaesth., November 1, 2006; 97(5): 666 - 675.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Anesth. Analg.Home page
M. T. V. Chan, S. S. Ho, T. Gin, G. N. Schmidt, T. Standl, and P. Bischoff
AEP "Click Detection" Failure: May Be, May Be Not! * Response
Anesth. Analg., September 1, 2004; 99(3): 948 - 950.
[Full Text] [PDF]



Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.