GuidelineNeurocritical care2026
Guidelines for Neuroprognostication in Critically Ill Adults with Status Epilepticus.
Guideline in Neurocritical care, 2026. 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
18 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundStatus epilepticus (SE) is a heterogeneous disorder with significant morbidity and mortality. This guideline provides broad principles of neuroprognostication and recommendations on the reliability of clinical predictors of outcome that clinicians may consider when counseling surrogate decision-makers of patients with SE.
methodsThis narrative systematic review used Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation methodology. Good practice recommendations addressed essential principles of neuroprognostication. Candidate predictors, including clinical variables and prediction models, were selected based on clinical relevance and the availability of appropriate evidence. The question was: "When counseling surrogates of patients with SE, should [predictor, with time of assessment if appropriate] be considered a reliable predictor of [outcome] assessed at [time point]?" Outcomes were selected and rated by the panel. Screening criteria were used to exclude smaller and lower-quality studies. Following construction of the evidence profile and summary of findings, recommendations were based on four Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation criteria: quality of evidence, balance of desirable and undesirable consequences, values and preferences, and resource use.
resultsGood practice recommendations include establishing appropriate long-term goals with surrogates of patients with SE that may extend beyond seizure control alone, setting expectations for recovery in patients with refractory/super-refractory SE, using predictors specific to underlying pathologies as a basis for neuroprognostication, considering potential confounders, and deferring neuroprognostication in cases of unclear etiology until appropriate diagnostic evaluation is performed. Nine clinical variables and two prediction models were selected. A sufficient body of evidence was available only for the prediction of mortality. Forty-two articles met the eligibility criteria for guiding recommendations. None of the variables and models selected were identified as reliable predictors of mortality in patients with SE.
conclusionsThis guideline provides broad principles for neuroprognostication and recommendations on the reliability of predictors of in-hospital mortality in the context of counseling surrogates of patients with SE.
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.