Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25891806›Full record

SynthesisDeutsches Arzteblatt international2015

Persistent vegetative state and minimally conscious state: a systematic review and meta-analysis of diagnostic procedures.

Andreas Bender, Ralf J Jox, Eva Grill, Andreas Straube, Dorothée Lulé

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Deutsches Arzteblatt international, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
37citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
4.4field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

37 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 69 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Predicting outcome in disorders of consciousness: A mega-analysis.Annals of clinical and translational neurology · 2024
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. The Role of [Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Behavioral scales variability in patients with prolonged disorders of consciousness.Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2023
    Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Andreas BenderDepartment of Neurology, Therapiezentrum Burgau, Neurological Clinic and Policlinic, Großhadern Hospital, Ludwig-Maximilian-Universität, Institute of Ethics, History and Theory of Medicine, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Institute for Medical Data Processing, Biometrics and Epidemiology, Ludwig-Maximilian-Universität München, Department of Neurology, University of Ulm.
Ralf J Jox
Eva Grill
Andreas Straube
Dorothée Lulé
Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAcute brain damage can cause major disturbances of consciousness, ranging all the way to the persistent vegetative state (PVS), which is also known as "unresponsive wakefulness syndrome". PVS can be hard to distinguish from a state of minimal preserved consciousness ("minimally conscious state," MCS); the rate of misdiagnosis is high and has been estimated at 37-43%. In contrast, PVS is easily distinguished from brain death. We discuss the various diagnostic techniques that can be used to determine whether a patient is minimally conscious or in a persistent vegetative state.

methodsThis article is based on a systematic review of pertinent literature and on a quantitative meta-analysis of the sensitivity and specificity of new diagnostic methods for the minimally conscious state.

resultsWe identified and evaluated 20 clinical studies involving a total of 906 patients with either PVS or MCS. The reported sensitivities and specificities of the various techniques used to diagnose MCS vary widely. The sensitivity and specificity of functional MRI-based techniques are 44% and 67%, respectively (with corresponding 95% confidence intervals of 19%-72% and 55%-77%); those of quantitative EEG are 90% and 80%, respectively (95% CI, 69%-97% and 66%-90%). EEG, event-related potentials, and imaging studies can also aid in prognostication. Contrary to prior assumptions, 10% to 24% of patients in PVS can regain consciousness, sometimes years after the event, but only with marked functional impairment.

conclusionThe basic diagnostic evaluation for differentiating PVS from MCS consists of a standardized clinical examination. In the future, modern diagnostic techniques may help identify patients who are in a subclinical minimally conscious state.

Indexed as

Brain MappingComaDiagnosis, DifferentialDiagnostic ErrorsDiagnostic Techniques, NeurologicalElectroencephalographyFemaleHumansMagnetic Resonance ImagingMalePersistent Vegetative StatePrevalenceReproducibility of ResultsSensitivity and Specificity

Identifiers

PMID25891806
PMCPMC4413244
OpenAlexW972576102

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.