ArticleResuscitation plus2025
Implementation of a specialized neuroprognostication consultation program and associated provider attitudes: A survey-based study.
Article in Resuscitation plus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Reading Between the Lines After Cardiac Arrest.Neurocritical care · 2026Article
- Updates in Management of Acute Disorders of Consciousness After Traumatic Injury.Brain sciences · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Introduction: Neuroprognostication for disorders of consciousness, particularly after cardiac arrest, is critical. However rapidly evolving research has translated little to clinical practice, with neuroprognostication frequently deviating from evidence and clinical guidelines. We implemented a novel program that provides specialized, interdisciplinary, and longitudinal care to improve the practice of neuroprognostication. The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of this program on provider attitudes and satisfaction towards neuroprognostication after cardiac arrest. Methods: We disseminated surveys across our health system to critical care providers and neurologists in the years before (2021, 2022) and after (2023) implementation of the program. The surveys assessed perceptions of, and satisfaction with, neuroprognostication after cardiac arrest. We used Fisher exact tests to compare program-exposed respondents to historical controls (2021 and 2022 respondents) and contemporary controls (2023 respondents without program exposure). Results: We received 545 responses from neurologists and critical care providers, including nurses, trainees, and attendings. Program-exposed respondents, relative to historical and contemporary controls respectively, reported greater usefulness of neuroprognostication (94% reporting often or always useful, versus 69% [ Conclusion: Implementation of a specialized neuroprognostication program was associated with largely favorable attitudes towards neuroprognostication among providers. These findings encourage further study of this paradigm, and consideration of broader adoption to improve the practice of neuroprognostication.
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.