Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37821721›Full record

ArticleNeurocritical care2024

A National Survey on Coma Epidemiology, Evaluation, and Therapy in India: Revisiting the Curing Coma Campaign Come Together Survey.

Charu Mahajan, Hemanshu Prabhakar, Verena Rass, Molly McNett, Indu Kapoor, Raimund Helbok, Kapil Zirpe, and Collaborators

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Neurocritical care, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Cognition and psychological wellbeing in hypopituitary patients.Reviews in endocrine & metabolic disorders · 2024
    Review
  4. 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

8 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.

Charu MahajanDepartment of Neuroanaesthesiology and Critical Care, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, 110029, India.
Hemanshu PrabhakarDepartment of Neuroanaesthesiology and Critical Care, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, 110029, India. prabhakaraiims@yahoo.co.in.ORCID 0000-0001-7830-3296
Verena RassNeuro-Intensive Care Unit, Department of Neurology, Medical University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria.
Molly McNettCollege of Nursing, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA.
Indu KapoorDepartment of Neuroanaesthesiology and Critical Care, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, 110029, India.
Raimund HelbokDepartment of Neurology, Medical University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria.
Kapil ZirpeNeurotrauma Unit, Ruby Hall Clinic, Pune, Maharashtra, India.
and Collaborators
All India Institute of Medical Sciences · INInnsbruck Medical University · ATRuby Hall Clinic · INJohannes Kepler University of Linz · ATThe Ohio State University · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe limited representation from developing countries in the original COME TOGETHER survey gave us an impetus to conduct this survey in the Indian subcontinent.

methodsThis cross-sectional online survey was conducted from August through September 2022. Participants were health care physicians caring for patients with coma and disorders of consciousness. Fischer's exact test or the Mann-Whitney U-test was used to compare respondents who agreed or disagreed with the preestablished coma definition. Fleiss κ values were calculated to assess agreement among respondents. A p value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

resultsThe survey was completed by 130 physicians. We found substantial interrater agreement on absence of wakefulness (71.54%; κ = 0.71), Glasgow Coma Score ≤ 8 (78.46%; κ = 0.78), and failure to respond purposefully to visual, verbal, or tactile stimuli (66.15%; κ = 0.66). Reported common etiologies of coma included traumatic brain injury (50.76%), ischemic stroke (30%), and intracerebral hemorrhage (29.23%). The most common clinical assessment tools used for coma included the Glasgow Coma Score (92.3%) and neurological examination (60.8%). Neurological examination was the most common diagnostic tool used (100%), followed by magnetic resonance imaging (89.2%), basic laboratory studies (88.5%), and head computed tomography/angiography (86.9%). Pharmacological interventions used to stimulate arousal in patients with coma were sedation vacation (91.5%), electrolyte/endocrine correction (65.4%), osmotic therapy with mannitol (60%), hypertonic saline (54.6%), modafinil (46.9%), and antidote for drugs (45.4%). Among the nonpharmacological interventions, sensory stimulation (57.7%) was the most commonly used modality. The most common discharge disposition for comatose patients who survived hospitalization were home with or without services (70.0%).

conclusionsDifferences from the global survey were noted regarding the following: traumatic brain injury being the most common etiology of coma in India, more frequent practice of sedation interruption, less frequent use of electroencephalography in India, rare use of pharmacological neurostimulants, and home being the most common discharge disposition in India.

Indexed as

ComaGlasgow Coma ScaleAdultBrain Injuries, TraumaticCerebral HemorrhageCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansIndiaMaleMiddle AgedStrokeSurveys and QuestionnairesComaCritical careDisorders of consciousnessSurvey

Identifiers

PMID37821721
OpenAlexW4387522311

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.