ArticleNeurosurgical review1992
Brain death: practicability of evoked potentials.
Article in Neurosurgical review, 1992. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 27 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- A critique of ancillary tests for brain death.Neurocritical care · 2004Review
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Multimodally evoked potentials were registered in 85 patients who fulfilled the criteria for brain death. While somatosensory and visual evoked potentials have been found to be of limited value for the diagnosis of brain death, the stepwise abolition of brain stem auditory evoked potentials (BAEP) confirmed brain death in 26 out of 85 patients, i.e. 31%. Registration of the abolition of BAEP is concluded to be a safe and acceptable confirmatory test. It is, however, more feasible for institutions, in which BAEP are analysed routinely. In spite of all efforts sequential BAEP could not be used for the diagnosis of brain death in the majority of cases either because of absence of reproducible responses at the initial registration or because the patient was already apnoic at the time of the initial BAEP. Assuming that bilateral preservation of wave I has the same significance as the stepwise abolition of BAEP, since it also proves the integrity of the peripheral receptor, BAEP are relevant for the declaration of brain death in approximately 30% of patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.