ReviewDer Nervenarzt2019
[Diagnosis of irreversible loss of brain function ("brain death")-what is new?]
Review in Der Nervenarzt, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Milestones in the history of neurocritical care.Neurological research and practice · 2023Review
- Exclusive color-coded duplex sonography of extracranial vessels reliably confirms brain death: A prospective study.Frontiers in neurology · 2022Article
- [Diagnostics of irreversible brain death : Limitations and potential for improvement from the perspective of transplantation officials].Der Anaesthesist · 2021Article
- [Brain death criterion and organ donation: current neuroscientific perspective].Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz · 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
The determination of the irreversible cessation of brain function (ICBF) is conducted in Germany according to the guideline of the German Medical Association, which is currently its fourth update issued in July 2015. This article provides an assessment of the current situation including an international comparison. International case reports with allegedly incorrect ICBF diagnosis are reviewed from the point of view of the German guideline. These case reports underpin the validity of the German guideline, especially its following provisions: (1) in patients with known or suspected adaptation to chronic hypercapnia, apnea cannot be diagnosed as usual; therefore in such a case the proof of cerebral circulatory arrest is mandatory; (2) if perfusion scintigraphy is used for proof of cerebral circulatory arrest, only validated lipophilic radiopharmaceuticals are allowed. This is compatible with new research data which indicate that cellular function can be reactivated for several hours after circulatory arrest but not the brain function. The recently updated recommendations of the German Society for Clinical Neurophysiology and Functional Imaging (DGKN) for ancillary testing include editorial adaptations (e.g., the more precise specification of the electrode positions for electroencephalography), standards of display screen with digital electroencephalography and age-related minimum values of mean arterial pressure for Doppler and duplex sonography in children. The novel requirements regarding the institutional organization of ICBF diagnostics in Germany issued in the "Second law on the amendment of transplantation law-improvement of the cooperation and the framework for organ donation" that became effective recently are presented and discussed critically in this review.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31312849What 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.