ArticleNeurocritical care2026
Auditory Stimuli Most Effective in Eliciting Reactivity in Critically Ill Patients with an Impaired Consciousness.
Article 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundElectroencephalograpy (EEG) reactivity may aid functional outcome prediction in the intensive care unit (ICU). Different types of stimuli could vary in their ability to evoke reactivity. This study explored which type of stimulus is best to elicit EEG reactivity in ICU patients with an impaired consciousness. We also investigated associations between reactivity and hospital survival and functional outcome. Lastly, we compared standardized testing with random stimuli application.
methodsAdult ICU patients with an impaired consciousness and an EEG with reactivity testing were screened for eligibility. Stimuli were auditory (clapping and calling patient's name), visual, tactile, and noxious. Three raters, blinded to clinical outcomes, scored each EEG recording and stimulus for reactivity. Interrater reliability was assessed using Fleiss' kappa. Associations between reactivity and outcomes were analyzed with logistic regression.
resultsIn total, 72 patients were included, most commonly with traumatic brain injury which was present in 19 patients (26.4%) and a median GCS score of 6 (interquartile range, IQR 3-11). EEG reactivity was present in 30.6% of patients. Auditory stimuli were most effective, accounting for 57% of all reactive stimuli. Interrater reliability was highest for clapping (κ = 0.633, 77% raw agreement) and calling the patient's name (κ = 0.584, 74% raw agreement). Reactivity was not associated with hospital survival or 6-month functional outcome. Standardized testing was applied in 23.6% of patients and improved raters' certainty in detecting reactivity compared with the application of random stimuli (88.2% vs. 41.8%, p = 0.002).
conclusionsAuditory stimuli (clapping and calling the patient's name) proved most effective in eliciting EEG reactivity. Reactivity was not associated with outcomes. Standardized testing increased raters' certainty in detecting reactivity.
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.