ReviewCritical care (London, England)2026
Death determination at the bedside: clinical judgement beyond criteria.
Review in Critical care (London, England), 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
backgroundIn clinical practice, death determination-a core responsibility of critical care clinicians-is commonly taught as the technical application of standardized medical and legal criteria. However, contemporary practices, including resuscitation, death determination by neurological criteria, withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment, and controlled donation after circulatory determination of death, show that determining death also requires interpretative and performative, context-dependent clinical judgement operating within persistent scientific limits and implicit assumptions about human life and its end. MAIN BODY: Using a single illustrative clinical scenario followed across four trajectories-obvious death, cardiac arrest and resuscitation, death determined by neurological criteria, and circulatory death following withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment-we examine how death determination operates at the intersection of medical criteria, clinical judgement, scientific limits, and implicit assumptions. Particular uncertainties concern the relationships between circulation, cerebral perfusion, and brain function; the distinction between complete and partial loss of brain function; the distinction between permanent and irreversible loss; and the prediction of neurological recovery, acceptable functional outcome, and meaningful life. These uncertainties are managed differently across clinical contexts. Across these contexts, clinicians do not simply observe a discrete biological event: they interpret an evolving process of dying within established medical and legal frameworks. The declaration of death is therefore also performative, transforming the patient's medical, legal, and social status.
conclusionDeath determination should not be understood or taught solely as the application of criteria and protocols. Making explicit in critical care education the scientific limits, implicit assumptions, and context-dependent clinical judgement involved in determining and declaring death may help clinicians better assume this responsibility, improve communication with families, and sustain public trust in end-of-life care and organ donation.
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.