ArticleDer Nervenarzt2023
[Prospective investigation of extracranial duplex sonography for the detection of cerebral circulatory arrest in patients with irreversible loss of brain function].
Article in Der Nervenarzt, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundA broader distribution of bedside color-coded duplex sonography (CCD) for detection of cerebral circulatory arrest (CCA) would be important to improve its use in the diagnosis of irreversible loss of brain function (ILBF-Dx). QUESTION: Is extracranial compared to the commonly applied transcranial CCD of the brain-supplying vessels (ECCD vs. TCCD) equivalent for the detection of CCA in ILBF-Dx regarding specificity and sensitivity? MATERIAL AND
methodsStudy period January 2019-June 2022, screening of 136 and inclusion of 114 patients with severe brain lesions > 24 h after onset of fixed and dilated pupils, apnea and completed ILBF-Dx. Exclusion of patients without brainstem areflexia and guideline-conform applicability of CCD. Complementary ECCD (and TCCD, if other method used for irreversibility detection).
resultsDetection of ILBF (ILBF+) in 86.8% (99/114), no ILBF (ILBF-) in 13.2% (15/114). ECCD was fully feasible in all patients; findings matching CCA were found in 94/99 ILBF+ cases (ECCD+) and not in 5 patients (ECCD-). All 15 patients with ILBF- showed ECCD- findings. Thus, the specificity of ECCD was 1.0, and the sensitivity was 0.949. TCCD showed CCA in 56 patients (TCCD+), and ECCD+ was also found in all of them. An inconclusive result of TCCD in ILBF+ was found in 38 cases, with parallel ECCD+ in all of these patients. In 20 cases, TCCD did not show CCA (TCCD-), these also showed ECCD-. Of these patients 15 were ILBF- and 5 were ILBF+. DISCUSSION: TCCD was not completely feasible or inconclusive in one third of the cases, whereas ECCD was always feasible. ECCD showed high validity with respect to the detection of CCA. Therefore, the possibility of using ECCD alone to detect CCA in ILBF-Dx should be discussed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.