Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37429707›Full record

ArticleNeurology2023

Rethinking Brain Death-Why "Dead Enough" Is Not Good Enough: The UDDA Revision Series.

Daniel P Sulmasy, Christopher A DeCock

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Neurology, 2023. 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
4.9field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
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, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. A structured analysis of the concept of brain death.Theoretical medicine and bioethics · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Addressing the Problem of Brain Death Misdiagnosis.The Journal of law, medicine & ethics : a journal of the American Society of Law, Medicine & Ethics · 2025
    Article
  5. 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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Daniel P SulmasyFrom the The Kennedy Institute of Ethics (D.P.S.), Georgetown University, Washington, DC; and Essentia Health and The University of North Dakota School of Medicine and Health Sciences (C.A.D.), Fargo. sulmasyd@georgetown.edu.
Christopher A DeCockFrom the The Kennedy Institute of Ethics (D.P.S.), Georgetown University, Washington, DC; and Essentia Health and The University of North Dakota School of Medicine and Health Sciences (C.A.D.), Fargo.
Georgetown University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The emergence of cases of so-called "chronic brain death" seems to undermine the biophilosophical justification of brain death as true death, which was grounded in the idea that death entails the loss of integration of the organism. Severely neurologically damaged patients who can persist for years with proper support seem to be integrated organisms, and common sense suggests that they are not dead. We argue, however, that mere integration is not enough for an organism to be alive, but that living beings must be substantially

Indexed as

Brain DeathConsciousnessHumans

Identifiers

PMID37429707
PMCPMC10437022
OpenAlexW4383747404

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.