ArticleNeurocritical care2025
Ethically Translating Advanced Neurotechnologies for Disorders of Consciousness: A Survey of Clinicians' Perspectives.
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.
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.
- Common Consent Elements for Research Involving Persons with Disorders of Consciousness (CCE-DOC).Neurocritical care · 2026Article
- From fMRI to Family Meeting: Clinician and Family Perspectives on Neurotechnology-Informed Shared Decision-Making in Disorders of Consciousness.Neurocritical care · 2026Article
- Covert brain complexity in the intensive care unit.Cortex; a journal devoted to the study of the nervous system and behavior · 2026Article
- Covert Consciousness: Epistemic Limits of Its Definition and Detection.Neurocritical care · 2026Review
- From detection to decision: a conceptual framework of uncertainty migration in disorders of consciousness.Frontiers in neurology · 2026Review
- Early Detection of Covert Consciousness With Functional Near-Infrared Spectroscopy.Annals of neurology · 2025Article
- Emerging issues in the management of patients with disorders of consciousness.Journal of neurology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
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
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.