ArticleTherapeutic advances in neurological disorders2024
Clinical and ethical challenges in decision-making for patients with disorders of consciousness and locked-in syndrome from Chinese neurologists' perspectives.
Article in Therapeutic advances in neurological disorders, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The diagnosis of and life-sustaining treatment (LST) for patients with disorders of consciousness (DoC) and locked-in syndrome (LIS) have been the subject of intense debate. Objective: We aim to investigate the application of diagnostic knowledge, opinions about the administration of LST, and ethical challenges related to DoC and LIS. Design: A cross-sectional study. Methods: A survey was conducted among Chinese neurologists. Questionnaires included three vignettes (unresponsive wakefulness syndrome (UWS); minimally conscious state (MCS), and LIS). They were randomly distributed among neurologists from August 2018 to December 2019. Results: A sample of 360 questionnaires was included (response rate: 78%). Overall, 63% of the participants chose the correct diagnostic category. The neurologists who received the MCS case chose the category more accurately than the neurologists with the UWS ( Conclusion: A large proportion of Chinese neurologists in our study didn't apply the accurate diagnostic categories to the description of DoC and LIS patients. This calls for more education and training. Most Chinese neurologists were reluctant to limit LST for patients. This may indicate that there may be a need to emphasize the allocation of more resources toward long-term care in China.
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.