Observational studyJournal of neurology2019
The observation period after clinical brain death diagnosis according to ancillary tests: differences between supratentorial and infratentorial brain injury.
Observational study in Journal of neurology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo determine the optimal observation period (OBP) in adults with a clinical diagnosis of brain death (BD) using electroencephalography (EEG) or computerized tomography angiography (CTA).
methodsWe conducted a retrospective observational analysis of adult patients with a diagnosis of BD from January 2000 to February 2017. The optimal OBP was defined as the minimum time interval from the first complete clinical neurological examination (CNE) that ensures that neither a second CNE nor any ancillary test (AT) performed after this period would fail to confirm BD.
resultsThe study sample included 447 patients. In the supratentorial group, the first AT confirmed BD in 389 cases (98%), but in 8 (2%) cases the complementary test was incongruent. In this group, 8 of 245 patients in whom the first AT was carried out within the first 2 h after a complete CNE had a non-confirmatory test of BD versus none of 152 in whom the first AT was delayed more than 2 h (3.0% vs 0.0%; p = 0.026). In the infratentorial group, we found a higher probability of obtaining a first non-confirmatory AT of BD (34% vs 2%; p = 0.0001) and an OBP greater than 32.5 h was necessary to confirm a BD diagnosis.
conclusionsWe found important differences in the confirmation of BD diagnosis between primary supratentorial and infratentorial lesion, and identified an optimal OBP of 2 h in patients with supratentorial lesions. By contrast, in primary posterior fossa/infratentorial lesions, the determination of an optimal OPB remains less accurate and hence more challenging.
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.