Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38117774›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2023

Understanding the value of brain donation for research to donors, next-of-kin and clinicians: A systematic review.

Cassandra P Griffin, Jenna R Bowen, Marjorie M Walker, James Lynam, Christine L Paul

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 15% 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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Cassandra P GriffinCollege of Health, Medicine and Wellbeing University of Newcastle, Tamworth, NSW, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-4107-0921
Jenna R BowenCollege of Health, Medicine and Wellbeing University of Newcastle, Tamworth, NSW, Australia.
Marjorie M WalkerCollege of Health, Medicine and Wellbeing University of Newcastle, Tamworth, NSW, Australia.
James LynamCollege of Health, Medicine and Wellbeing University of Newcastle, Tamworth, NSW, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-6742-820X
Christine L PaulCollege of Health, Medicine and Wellbeing University of Newcastle, Tamworth, NSW, Australia.
Hunter Medical Research Institute · AUTamworth Hospital · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposePost-mortem brain donation affords the opportunity to characterise disease by exploring global neuropathological changes. Such opportunities are essential to progress knowledge of CNS tumours such as Glioblastoma. A comprehensive understanding of the experience of consenting to brain donation is crucial to maximising consent rates while providing patient-centred care. This review aimed to synthesise the reported facilitators and barriers according to potential donors, next-of-kin (NOK) and clinician respondents.

designDatabase searches included Embase, Medline, PsycINFO, Psychology and Behavioural Science and Scopus. Search terms focused on motivations, attitudes and psychosocial experiences of brain donation. Exclusions included organ transplantation and brain death. All studies were assessed for quality and validity using tools from the Joanna Briggs Institute. To determine perceptions of benefit and harm, a method guided by the thematic analysis of Braun and Clarke was employed to reflexively assess and identify common themes and experiences.

results40 studies (15 qualitative, 25 quantitative) were included involving participants with paediatric cancer, neurodegenerative and psychological diseases. Perceptions of benefit included benefit to future generations, aiding scientific research, avoidance of waste, improved treatments and the belief that donation will bring consolation or aid in the grieving process. Perceptions of harm included a perceived conflict with religious beliefs, disfigurement to the donor, emotional distress at the time of autopsy and discord or objections within the family.

conclusionBrain donation can afford a sense of purpose, meaning and empowerment for donors and their loved ones. Careful strategies are required to mitigate or reduce potential harms during the consent process.

Indexed as

Tissue and Organ ProcurementAttitudeAutopsyBrainChildHumansTissue Donors

Identifiers

PMID38117774
PMCPMC10732432
OpenAlexW4390037805

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.