ArticleNeurocritical care2024
Common Data Elements for Disorders of Consciousness: Recommendations from the Working Group in the Pediatric Population.
Article in Neurocritical care, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 7 papers.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Education and Ethical Guidance for Organ Donation at the End-of-Life: An Ethical Guidance Statement from the Neurocritical Care Society.Neurocritical care · 2026Review
- Common Consent Elements for Research Involving Persons with Disorders of Consciousness (CCE-DOC).Neurocritical care · 2026Article
- Cognitive Processing of Novel Auditory Stimuli in Children with Acute Disorders of Consciousness.Neurocritical care · 2026Article
- Disorders of consciousness diagnosis, interventions, and prognostication for the intensivist: Report of the 2025 ISICEM roundtable.Intensive care medicine · 2026Review
- Opioid neurotoxicity: A case series and review from members of the Child Neurology Society Neurocritical Care Special Interest Group.Annals of the Child Neurology Society · 2024Article
- Common data elements for disorders of consciousness.Neurocritical care · 2024Article
- Common Data Elements for Disorders of Consciousness: Recommendations from the Working Group in the Pediatric Population.Neurocritical care · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
14 authors at 13 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe fundamental gap obstructing forward progress of evidenced-based care in pediatric and neonatal disorders of consciousness (DoC) is the lack of defining consensus-based terminology to perform comparative research. This lack of shared nomenclature in pediatric DoC stems from the inherently recursive dilemma of the inability to reliably measure consciousness in the very young. However, recent advancements in validated clinical examinations and technologically sophisticated biomarkers of brain activity linked to future abilities are unlocking this previously formidable challenge to understanding the DoC in the developing brain.
methodsTo address this need, the first of its kind international convergence of an interdisciplinary team of pediatric DoC experts was organized by the Neurocritical Care Society's Curing Coma Campaign. The multidisciplinary panel of pediatric DoC experts proposed pediatric-tailored common data elements (CDEs) covering each of the CDE working groups including behavioral phenotyping, biospecimens, electrophysiology, family and goals of care, neuroimaging, outcome and endpoints, physiology and big Data, therapies, and pediatrics.
resultsWe report the working groups' pediatric-focused DoC CDE recommendations and disseminate CDEs to be used in studies of pediatric patients with DoC.
conclusionsThe CDEs recommended support the vision of progressing collaborative and successful internationally collaborative pediatric coma research.
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.