ArticleJournal of evaluation in clinical practice2015
Interpreting chronic disorders of consciousness: medical science and family experience.
Article in Journal of evaluation in clinical practice, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Implicit Bias and Microaggressions in the Care of People With Prolonged Disorders of Consciousness: Bridging Medicine, Disability Studies, and Family Advocacy.Journal of evaluation in clinical practice · 2026Article
- Perception of diagnosis by family caregivers in severe brain injury patients in China.BMC palliative care · 2024Article
- Disambiguating Consciousness in Clinical Settings.Neurology · 2023Article
- Caregiver reactions to neuroimaging evidence of covert consciousness in patients with severe brain injury: a qualitative interview study.BMC medical ethics · 2021Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
RATIONALE, AIMS AND
objectivesChronic disorders of consciousness (CDoC) pose significant problems of understanding for both medical professionals and the relatives and friends of the patient. This paper explores the tensions between the different interpretative resources that are drawn upon by lay people and professionals in their response to CDoC.
methodsA philosophical analysis of data from 51 interviews with people who have relatives who are (or have been) in a vegetative or minimally conscious state.
resultsThe medical specialist and the lay person tend to draw on two different interpretative frameworks: a medical science framework, which tends to construct the patient in terms of measurable physical parameters, and an interpretative framework that encompasses the uniqueness of the patient and the relative's relationship to them as a social being.
conclusionsThese differences potentially lead to ruptures in communication between medical professionals and relatives such that that an increased self-consciousness of the framing assumptions being made will facilitate communication and enrich understanding of CDoCs.
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.