Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 505

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Is This Patient Dead, Vegetative, or Severely Neurologically Impaired?: Assessing Outcome for Comatose Survivors of Cardiac Arrest

Booth, Christopher M., Boone, Robert H., Tomlinson, George, Detsky, Allan S.·2004·JAMA

Abstract

CONTEXT: Most survivors of cardiac arrest are comatose after resuscitation, and meaningful neurological recovery occurs in a small proportion of cases. Treatment can be lengthy, expensive, and often difficult for families and caregivers. Physical examination is potentially useful in this clinical scenario, and the information obtained may help physicians and families make accurate decisions about treatment and/or withdrawal of care. OBJECTIVE: To determine the precision and accuracy of the clinical examination in predicting poor outcome in post-cardiac arrest coma. DATA SOURCES AND STUDY SELECTION: We searched MEDLINE for English-language articles (1966-2003) using the terms coma, cardiac arrest, prognosis, physical examination, sensitivity and specificity, and observer variation. Other sources came from bibliographies of retrieved articles and physical examination textbooks. Studies were included if they assessed the precision and accuracy of the clinical examination in prognosis of post-cardiac arrest coma in adults. Eleven studies, involving 1914 patients, met our inclusion criteria. DATA EXTRACTION: Two authors independently reviewed each study to determine eligibility, abstract data, and classify methodological quality using predetermined criteria. Disagreement was resolved by consensus. DATA SYNTHESIS: Summary likelihood ratios (LRs) were calculated from random effects models. Five clinical signs were found to strongly predict death or poor neurological outcome: absent corneal reflexes at 24 hours (LR, 12.9; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.0-68.7), absent pupillary response at 24 hours (LR, 10.2; 95% CI, 1.8-48.6), absent withdrawal response to pain at 24 hours (LR, 4.7; 95% CI, 2.2-9.8), no motor response at 24 hours (LR, 4.9; 95% CI, 1.6-13.0), and no motor response at 72 hours (LR, 9.2; 95% CI, 2.1-49.4). The proportion of individuals' dying or having a poor neurological outcome was calculated by pooling the outcome data from the 11 studies (n = 1914) and used as an estimate of the pretest probability of poor outcome. The random effects estimate of poor outcome was 77% (95% CI, 72%-80%). The highest LR increases the pretest probability of 77% to a posttest probability of 97% (95% CI, 87%-100%). No clinical findings were found to have LRs that strongly predicted good neurological outcome. CONCLUSIONS: Simple physical examination maneuvers strongly predict death or poor outcome in comatose survivors of cardiac arrest. The most useful signs occur at 24 hours after cardiac arrest, and earlier prognosis should not be made by clinical examination alone. These data provide prognostic information, rather than treatment recommendations, which must be made on an individual basis incorporating many other variables.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jama.291.7.870

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Cited by

See all 505

Metadata

Authors
Booth, C. M., Boone, R. H., Tomlinson, G., & Detsky, A. S.
Venue
JAMA
Published
2004-02-18
Volume
291
Issue
7
Pages
870
ISSN
  • 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
  • 0098-7484
OpenAlex
W2092760657
Cited by
505
References
2
FWCI
28.79
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.