Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33618577›Full record

ArticleJournal of intensive care medicine2021

A Framework for Revisiting Brain Death: Evaluating Awareness and Attitudes Toward the Neuroscientific and Ethical Debate Around the American Academy of Neurology Brain Death Criteria.

Krishanu Chatterjee, Mohamed Y Rady, Joseph L Verheijde, Richard J Butterfield

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of intensive care medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Krishanu ChatterjeeMayo Clinic Alix School of Medicine, Scottsdale, AZ, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7824-7957
Mohamed Y RadyDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, Mayo Clinic Hospital, Phoenix, AZ, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4838-2242
Joseph L VerheijdeDepartment of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation, Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ, USA.
Richard J ButterfieldDepartment of Biostatistics, Mayo Clinic, Scottsdale, AZ, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThere remains a lack of awareness around the American Academy of Neurology (AAN) procedural criteria for brain death and the surrounding controversies, leading to significant practice variability. This survey study assessed for existing knowledge and attitude among healthcare professionals regarding procedural criteria and potential change after an educational intervention.

methodsHealthcare professionals with increased exposure to brain injury at Mayo Clinic hospitals in Arizona and Florida were invited to complete an online survey consisting of 2 iterations of a 14-item questionnaire, taken before and after a 30-minute video educational intervention. The questionnaire gathered participants' opinion of (1) their knowledge of the AAN procedural criteria, (2) whether these criteria determine complete, irreversible cessation of brain function, and (3) on what concept of death they base the equivalence of brain death to biological death.

resultsOf the 928 people contacted, a total of 118 and 62 participants completed the pre-intervention and post-intervention questionnaire, respectively. The results show broad, unchanging support for the concept of brain death (86.8%) and that current criteria constitute best practice. While 64.9% agree further that the loss of consciousness and spontaneous breathing is sufficient for death, contradictorily, 37.6% believe the loss of additional integrated bodily functions such as fighting infection is necessary for death. A plurality trusts these criteria to demonstrate loss of brain function that is irreversible (67.6%) and complete (43.6%) at baseline, but there is significantly less agreement on both at post-intervention.

conclusionAlthough there is consistent support that AAN procedural criteria are best for clinical practice, results show a tenuous belief that these criteria determine irreversible and complete loss of all brain function. Despite support for the concept of brain death first developed by the President's Council, participants demonstrate confusion over whether the loss of consciousness and spontaneous breath are truly sufficient for death.

Indexed as

Brain DeathNeurologyAttitudeHumansUnited StatesAmerican Academy of Neurologybrain deathcoma depasséirreversible comapractice guidelinesWorld Brain Death Project

Identifiers

PMID33618577
PMCPMC8442138

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.