ReviewClinical neurophysiology practice2026
Prognostic value of auditory evoked potentials in disorders of consciousness: a systematic literature review.
Review in Clinical neurophysiology practice, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Decisions regarding withdrawal of life support in disorders of consciousness (DoC) are challenged by prognostic uncertainty. Auditory evoked potentials (AEPs) are widely used, yet no recent systematic review has focused exclusively on their prognostic value. Given evidence that some withdrawal decisions are based on inaccurate prognoses, this study aimed to evaluate the prognostic utility of AEPs in DoC using recent evidence. Methods: Comprehensive literature searches of PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science Core Collection identified studies published between 2013 and 2023 assessing AEPs for prognostication in DoC. Three authors independently screened studies using predefined criteria. Eligible studies were original English-language research evaluating prognostic outcomes in adults (≥18 years) with DoC. Reviews and secondary literature were excluded. Risk of bias was assessed using the QUADAS-2 tool. Results: Of 2249 records screened, 24 studies met inclusion criteria, encompassing 1562 patients. Mismatch negativity (MMN), the most frequently studied AEP, reliably predicted both favourable and unfavourable outcomes. P300 demonstrated potential for predicting recovery, though findings were inconsistent. Although less studied, the absence of N100 predicted poor functional outcomes, including reduced autonomy. Absence of brainstem or middle-latency AEPs predicted negative outcomes with high specificity but low sensitivity. Conclusion: MMN, P300, and N100 demonstrate meaningful prognostic value in DoC. Despite methodological heterogeneity, current evidence supports AEPs as useful clinical prognostic tools. Standardised, blinded protocols are needed to improve reliability. Significance: Integrating AEPs into multimodal prognostic frameworks may enhance outcome prediction. Advances in electrode coverage, machine learning, and automated detection paradigms offer promising future directions.
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.