SummaryBackgroundRecent experimental studies suggest that currently used anesthetics have neurotoxic effects on young animals. Clinical studies are increasingly publishing about the effects of anesthesia on the long‐term outcome, providing contradictory results. The selective alpha‐2 adrenergic receptor agonist dexmedetomidine has been suggested as an alternative nontoxic sedative agent.AimsThe aim of this systematic review was to assess the potential neuroprotective and neurobehavioral effects of dexmedetomidine in young animals and children.MethodsSystematic searches separately for preclinical and clinical studies were performed in Medline Ovid and Embase on February 14, 2018.ResultsThe initial search found preclinical (n = 661) and clinical (n = 240) studies. A total of 20 preclinical studies were included. None of the clinical studies met the predefined eligibility criteria. Histologic injury by dexmedetomidine was evaluated in 11 studies, and was confirmed in three of these studies (caspase‐3 activation or apoptosis). Decrease of injury caused by another anesthetic was evaluated in 16 studies and confirmed in 13 of these. Neurobehavioral tests were performed in seven out of the 20 studies. Of these seven rodent studies, three studies tested the effects of dexmedetomidine alone on neurobehavioral outcome in animals (younger than P21). All three studies found no negative effect of dexmedetomidine on the outcome. In six studies, outcome was evaluated when dexmedetomidine was administered following another anesthetic. Dexmedetomidine was found to lessen the negative effects of the anesthetic.ConclusionIn animals, dexmedetomidine was found not to induce histologic injury and to show a beneficial effect when administered with another anesthetic. No clinical results on the long‐term effects in children have been identified yet.

In the critical setting of a trauma team activation, team composition is crucial information that should be accessible at a glance. This calls for a technological solution, which are widely available, that allows access to the whereabouts of personnel. This diversity presents decision makers and users with many choices and considerations. The aim of this review is to give a comprehensive overview of available real-time person identification techniques and their respective characteristics. A systematic literature review was performed to create an overview of identification techniques that have been tested in medical settings or already have been implemented in clinical practice. These techniques have been investigated on a total of seven characteristics: costs, usability, accuracy, response time, hygiene, privacy, and user safety. The search was performed on 11 May 2020 in PubMed and the Web of Science Core Collection. PubMed and Web of Science yielded a total n = 265 and n = 228 records, respectively. The review process resulted in n = 23 included records. A total of seven techniques were identified: (a) active and (b) passive Radio-Frequency Identification (RFID) based systems, (c) fingerprint, (d) iris, and (e) facial identification systems and infrared (IR) (f) and ultrasound (US) (g) based systems. Active RFID was largely documented in the included literature. Only a few could be found about the passive systems. Biometric (c, d, and e) technologies were described in a variety of applications. IR and US techniques appeared to be a niche, as they were only spoken of in few (n = 3) studies.