Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37131037›Full record

ReviewCanadian journal of anaesthesia = Journal canadien d'anesthesie2023

What does "brainstem death" mean? A review of international protocols.

W E Spears, Ariane Lewis, Azza Bakkar, Elana Kreiger-Benson, Andrew Kumpfbeck, Jordan Liebman, Gene Sung, Sylvia Torrance, Sam D Shemie, David M Greer

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Canadian journal of anaesthesia = Journal canadien d'anesthesie, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Answering global challenges to the determination of death: consensus-building leadership from Canada.Canadian journal of anaesthesia = Journal canadien d'anesthesie · 2023
    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

10 authors.

W E SpearsDepartment of Neurology, Boston University Medical Center, 72 East Concord Street, Collamore 3, Boston, MA, 02118, USA. william.spears@bmc.org.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3257-6472
Ariane LewisNYU Langone Medical Center, New York, NY, USA.
Azza BakkarNYU Grossman School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA.
Elana Kreiger-BensonNYU Grossman School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA.
Andrew KumpfbeckNYU Grossman School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA.
Jordan LiebmanNYU Grossman School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA.
Gene SungLAC and USC Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Sylvia TorranceCanadian Blood Services, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Sam D ShemieCanadian Blood Services, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
David M GreerDepartment of Neurology, Boston University Medical Center, 72 East Concord Street, Collamore 3, Boston, MA, 02118, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe term "brainstem death" is ambiguous; it can be used to refer either exclusively to loss of function of the brainstem or loss of function of the whole brain. We aimed to establish the term's intended meaning in national protocols for the determination of brain death/death by neurologic criteria (BD/DNC) from around the world.

methodsOf 78 unique international protocols on determination of BD/DNC, we identified eight that referred exclusively to loss of function of the brainstem in the definition of death. Each protocol was reviewed to ascertain whether it 1) required assessment for loss of function of the whole brain, 2) required assessment only for loss of function of the brainstem, or 3) was ambiguous about whether loss of function of the higher brain was required to declare DNC.

resultsOf the eight protocols, two (25%) required assessment for loss of function of the whole brain, three (37.5%) only required assessment for loss of function of the brainstem, and three (37.5%) were ambiguous about whether loss of function of the higher brain was required to declare death. The overall agreement between raters was 94% (κ = 0.91).

conclusionsThere is international variability in the intended meaning of the terms "brainstem death" and "whole brain death" resulting in ambiguity and potentially inaccurate or inconsistent diagnosis. Regardless of the nomenclature, we advocate for national protocols to be clear regarding any requirement for ancillary testing in cases of primary infratentorial brain injury who may fulfill clinical criteria for BD/DNC.

Indexed as

BrainBrain DeathBrain StemHumansbrain deathbrainstem deathdeath by neurologic criteriaglobal neurologyprotocol

Identifiers

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.