ArticleJournal of intensive care2026
Temporal changes in clinical practices for patients considered clinically brain dead: a single-center cohort study.
Article in Journal of intensive 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPatients considered clinically brain dead undergo neurological assessment and critical care management, along with discussions with their families regarding goals of care and, when appropriate, organ donation. However, how these clinical and organ donation-related practices have evolved over time remains poorly characterized in Japan. We aimed to evaluate temporal changes in neurological assessment, critical care management, and organ donation-related processes among patients considered clinically brain dead.
methodsWe conducted a retrospective single-center cohort study including consecutive patients considered clinically brain dead in the Emergency ICU of Okayama University Hospital between January 2017 and December 2025. Patients were identified through routine auditory brainstem response testing during evaluation for a brain-death-compatible state. Temporal changes in the determination of a brain-death-compatible state, organ donation discussion, and critical care management were evaluated by calendar year, with three study phases (2017-2019, 2020-2022, and 2023-2025) used for descriptive presentation. Annual trends were assessed using logistic regression and nonparametric trend analyses.
resultsAmong 128 eligible patients, organ donation was discussed with the families of 110 (85.9%), and 41 (37.3%) subsequently underwent organ donation after brain death. Calendar-year analyses showed increasing corticosteroid use (odds ratio [OR] per year, 1.64; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.34-2.01; p < 0.001) and earlier initiation of corticosteroids and vasopressin, whereas no significant trends were observed in vasopressin use or in the timing of determination of a brain-death-compatible state or the initial organ donation discussion. The likelihood of organ donation discussion increased significantly over time (OR per year, 1.44; 95% CI 1.17-1.79; p = 0.001) and remained significant in a sensitivity analysis restricted to patients in whom discussion was considered feasible (OR per year, 2.11; 95% CI 1.42-3.15; p < 0.001).
conclusionsThe opportunity for organ donation discussion increased over time among patients considered clinically brain dead, while the proportion of families consenting to donation remained relatively stable. This increase occurred alongside the progressive development of structured multidisciplinary processes, although their contribution to the observed temporal trend cannot be determined from this descriptive study.
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.