ReviewJournal of pediatric intensive care2017
Ancillary Studies in Evaluating Pediatric Brain Death.
Review in Journal of pediatric intensive care, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Orbital Doppler Ultrasonography and Optic Nerve Sheath Diameter in Pediatric Brain Death Evaluation.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Diagnostic Sensitivity of the Revised Venous System in Brain Death in Children.Tomography (Ann Arbor, Mich.) · 2025Article
- The Use of Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound (CEUS) in the Evaluation of the Neonatal Brain.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- An Overdue Brain Death Assessment of Traumatic Brain Injury Patients: Review of Malaysian Medical Council 2006 Documentations.The Malaysian journal of medical sciences : MJMS · 2023Article
- Contrast-Enhanced Ultrasound (CEUS) as an Ancillary Imaging Test for Confirmation of Brain Death in an Infant: A Case Report.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Pediatric brain death certification: a narrative review.Translational pediatrics · 2021Review
- Brain death confirmation.Der Radiologe · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
When confounding variables exist that inhibit the ability to diagnose brain death clinically in pediatric patients, ancillary tests may provide additional information for the practitioner in evaluating for the presence or absence of brain death. Multiple options exist but differ in availability, ease of administration, cost, safety profile, and reliability to accurately diagnose brain death. An important desirable quality of an ancillary test is eliminating false positives, which imply brain death when brain death is in fact not present. More commonly available ancillary studies include electroencephalograms, brain angiography through various modalities, brain stem auditory evoked potentials, and transcranial Doppler ultrasound. At this time, there is not an ancillary test with 100% reliability in diagnosing brain death that can replace the clinical brain death exam. Therefore, practitioners need to understand the strengths and limitations of the ancillary studies available at their hospital.
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.