Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39477905›Full record

ArticleNeurocritical care2025

Ethically Translating Advanced Neurotechnologies for Disorders of Consciousness: A Survey of Clinicians' Perspectives.

Twisha Bhardwaj, Brian L Edlow, Michael J Young

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Neurocritical care, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Covert brain complexity in the intensive care unit.Cortex; a journal devoted to the study of the nervous system and behavior · 2026
    Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
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

3 authors.

Twisha BhardwajCenter for Neurotechnology and Neurorecovery, Department of Neurology, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, 55 Fruit St., Boston, MA, 02114, USA.
Brian L EdlowCenter for Neurotechnology and Neurorecovery, Department of Neurology, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, 55 Fruit St., Boston, MA, 02114, USA.
Michael J YoungCenter for Neurotechnology and Neurorecovery, Department of Neurology, Massachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical School, 55 Fruit St., Boston, MA, 02114, USA. michael.young@mgh.harvard.edu.ORCID 0000-0001-6661-0811

Funding

A Connectome-Based Clinical Trial Platform to Promote Early Recovery of Consciousness after Traumatic ComaDP2HD101400 · NICHD · MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL · PI EDLOW, BRIAN L. · 2019 to 2019
$2.5M
An Ethical Approach to Detecting Covert ConsciousnessF32MH123001 · NIMH · MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL HOSPITAL · PI YOUNG, MICHAEL J · 2020 to 2022
$159k
NICHD NIH HHS DP2 HD101400NIMH NIH HHS F32 MH123001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Although evaluation of disorders of consciousness (DoC) following brain injury has traditionally relied on bedside behavioral examination, advances in neurotechnology have elucidated novel approaches to detecting and predicting recovery of consciousness. Professional society guidelines now recommend that clinicians integrate these neurotechnologies into clinical practice as part of multimodal evaluations for some patients with DoC but have not crafted concrete protocols for this translation. Little is known about the experiences and ethical perspectives held by key stakeholder groups around the clinical implementation of advanced neurotechnologies to detect and predict recovery of consciousness. Recognizing this knowledge gap, the Data-Driven Neuroethics for Consciousness Detection (DECODE) survey examined clinicians' perspectives on advanced neurotechnologies for DoC care, including access to and rates of adoption, perceived utility, facilitators and barriers to adoption in clinical settings, ethical considerations surrounding clinical implementation, and challenges encountered in ensuring care for patients with acute and prolonged DoC. Mixed-methods analysis including qualitative analysis, grounded theory methodology, and ethical analysis was employed to assess responses and key themes. Ninety-two clinicians consented to the survey. More than 70% believed that standard bedside behavioral examination is insufficient, and nearly 60% viewed advanced neurotechnologies as integral in optimal DoC evaluation. Training gaps and limited institutional infrastructure were identified as salient barriers to clinical implementation. Thematic analysis revealed concerns about the interpretation of results, impact on surrogates, and validity of test results. Ethical themes of prognostic uncertainty, nihilism, and access also permeated multiple domains. Considerations surrounding access, knowledge base, results interpretation, and communication with surrogates are cross-cutting ethical threads shaping the clinical translation of advanced neurotechnologies for DoC. These components represent opportunities for implementation science work focused on democratizing access to neurotechnologies, educating clinicians on the use of novel techniques and interpretation of results, conducting multisite validation studies, and standardizing approaches to communicating test results.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelConsciousness DisordersFemaleHumansMaleCognitive motor dissociationComaCovert consciousnessDisorders of consciousnessEthicsMinimally conscious stateNeuroethicsNeurotechnologies

Identifiers

PMID39477905
PMCPMC13290070

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.