Appraisal of the quality of assessment of memory in anesthesia and psychopharmacology literature

To test the hypothesis that there are important differences between studies on memory published in anesthesia literature and those published in the psychopharmacology literature, we compared the two from the period January 1978 through May 1988 to identify deficiencies in the design and methodologies used and to provide guidelines for future experiments. Eight-eight articles in each discipline were reviewed. The sample sizes were larger in the articles in anesthesia journals than in those in psychopharmacology journals (medians 52.5 vs. 18 subjects, respectively). Most (85%) of the studies in the anesthesia literature used patients, who had a median age of 38.9 yr and included a median of 28 women among the subjects per study. In contrast, the majority (60%) of the studies in the psychopharmacology literature used healthy volunteers, who had a median age of 23.6 yr and included a median of only 3.5 females among the subjects per study. Characteristics more common in the psychopharmacology than in the anesthesia literature, respectively, were use of a control or placebo group (90% vs. 42%), double-blind design (80% vs. 47%), use of pre- and posttreatment memory measurements (64% vs. 23%), use of multiple memory tests with distinct equated stimuli (83% vs. 8%), relation of methodology to some theoretical model of memory (72% vs. 17%), and use of other behavioral tests (68% vs. 48%). Relative to the psychopharmacology literature, the anesthesia literature used pictures as stimuli for the memory tests more often (44% vs. 14%, respectively) and words less often (11% vs. 67%) and relied heavily on questions about recall of perioperative events (41% vs. 0%). There is room for improvement in both types of literature, and more so in the anesthesia literature.