ArticleAnnals of clinical and translational neurology2025
The Diagnostic Value of Visual Evoked Potentials in Chronic Disorders of Consciousness.
Article in Annals of clinical and translational neurology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveIn chronic disorders of consciousness (DOCs), the distinction between vegetative state/unresponsive wakefulness syndrome (VS/UWS) and minimally conscious state (MCS) is as crucial as it is challenging. Evoked potentials (EPs) and event-related potentials (ERPs) are helpful, but some limitations prevent their consistent use in the routine diagnostic process. This study investigated the value of EPs and ERPs in 146 adult chronic DOC patients (82 VS/UWS and 64 MCS).
methodsAll the patients underwent multimodal neurophysiological assessments, including flash-visual evoked potentials (f-VEPs), somatosensory EPs (SEPs), auditory EPs (AEPs), auditory ERPs, as well as a behavioral assessment using the Coma Recovery Scale-revised (CRS-r). We classified EPs and ERPs for the presence/absence of cortical responses, and then we performed an unsupervised cluster analysis to identify recurrent patterns. We then explored their occurrence in VS/UWS and MCS patients.
resultsVS/UWS patients showed fewer cortical responses to all modalities than MCS. Cluster analysis revealed groups 1, 2, and 3, which included patients without detectable cortical responses to ERPs and f-VEPs, patients with cortical responses to f-VEPs but not to ERPs, and patients with ERPs, respectively. Groups 2 and 3 had similar demographics and CRS-r scores, which were higher than those of patients in group 1.
interpretationOur data suggest that f-VEPs may be as effective as ERPs for diagnosing MCS. This is a significant finding, as f-VEPs likely reflect brain injury of a lesser extent and the conservation of cortical areas pivotal for consciousness, highlighting the prominence of f-VEPs for identifying MCS in chronic DOC patients.
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.