Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37155120›Full record

SynthesisCanadian journal of anaesthesia = Journal canadien d'anesthesie2023

Diagnostic accuracy of ancillary tests for death by neurologic criteria: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Joel Neves Briard, Roy Nitulescu, Émile Lemoine, Polina Titova, Lauralyn McIntyre, Shane W English, Greg Knoll, Sam D Shemie, Claudio Martin, Alexis F Turgeon and 3 more

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis 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 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Ancillary tests for brain death.Frontiers in neurology · 2024
    Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
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

13 authors.

Joel Neves BriardDepartment of Neuroscience, Université de Montréal, Montreal, QC, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1576-5669
Roy NitulescuCentre de recherche du Centre hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal, 900 rue Saint-Denis, Montreal, QC, H2X 3H8, Canada.
Émile LemoineDepartment of Neuroscience, Université de Montréal, Montreal, QC, Canada.
Polina TitovaCentre de recherche du Centre hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal, 900 rue Saint-Denis, Montreal, QC, H2X 3H8, Canada.
Lauralyn McIntyreClinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Shane W EnglishClinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Greg KnollClinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Sam D ShemieDepartment of Pediatrics, McGill University, Montreal, QC, Canada.
Claudio MartinDepartment of Medicine, Schulich School of Medicine and Dentistry, London, ON, Canada.
Alexis F TurgeonDivision of Critical Care Medicine, Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, Université Laval, Quebec City, QC, Canada.
François LauzierDivision of Critical Care Medicine, Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, Université Laval, Quebec City, QC, Canada.
Dean A FergussonClinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, ON, Canada.
Michaël ChasséCentre de recherche du Centre hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal, 900 rue Saint-Denis, Montreal, QC, H2X 3H8, Canada. michael.chasse@umontreal.ca.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7075-1924

Funding

CIHR KRS-132043
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeAncillary tests are frequently used in death determination by neurologic criteria (DNC), particularly when the clinical neurologic examination is unreliable. Nevertheless, their diagnostic accuracy has not been extensively studied. Our objective was to synthesize the sensitivity and specificity of commonly used ancillary tests for DNC. SOURCE: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis by searching MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane databases, and CINAHL Ebsco from their inception to 4 February 2022. We selected cohort and case-control studies including patients with 1) clinically diagnosed death by neurologic criteria or 2) clinically suspected death by neurologic criteria who underwent ancillary testing for DNC. We excluded studies without a priori diagnostic criteria and studies conducted solely on pediatric patients. Accepted reference standards were clinical examination, four-vessel conventional angiography, and radionuclide imaging. Data were directly extracted from published reports. We assessed the methodological quality of studies with the QUADAS-2 tool and estimated ancillary test sensitivities and specificities using hierarchical Bayesian models with diffuse priors. PRINCIPAL

findingsOverall, 137 records met the selection criteria. One study (0.7%) had a low risk of bias in all QUADAS-2 domains. Among clinically diagnosed death by neurologic criteria patients (n = 8,891), ancillary tests had similar pooled sensitivities (range, 0.82-0.93). Sensitivity heterogeneity was greater within (σ = 0.10-0.15) than between (σ = 0.04) ancillary test types. Among clinically suspected death by neurologic criteria patients (n = 2,732), pooled ancillary test sensitivities ranged between 0.81 and 1.00 and specificities between 0.87 and 1.00. Most estimates had high statistical uncertainty.

conclusionStudies assessing ancillary test diagnostic accuracy have an unclear or high risk of bias. High-quality studies are required to thoroughly validate ancillary tests for DNC. STUDY REGISTRATION: PROSPERO (CRD42013005907); registered 7 October 2013.

Indexed as

Bayes TheoremCase-Control StudiesChildHumansSensitivity and Specificityancillary testbrain deathdeath by neurologic criteriameta-analysissystematic review

Identifiers

PMID37155120
PMCPMC10202988

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.