Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 819

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Misdiagnosis of the vegetative state: retrospective study in a rehabilitation unit: Table 1

Open access
Andrews, Keith, Murphy, Lesley, Munday, Ros, Littlewood, Clare·1996·BMJ

Abstract

Objective : To identify the number of patients who were misdiagnosed as being in the vegetative state and their characteristics. Design : Retrospective study of the clinical records of the medical, occupational therapy, and clinical psychology departments. Setting : 20 bed unit specialising in the rehabilitation of patients with profound brain damage, including the vegetative state. Subjects : 40 patients admitted between 1992 and 1995 with a referral diagnosis of vegetative state. Outcome measures : Patients who showed an ability to communicate consistently using eye pointing or a touch sensitive single switch buzzer. Results : Of the 40 patients referred as being in the vegetative state, 17 (43%) were considered as having been misdiagnosed; seven of these had been presumed to be vegetative for longer than one year, including three for over four years. Most of the misdiagnosed patients were blind or severely visually impaired. All patients remained severely physically disabled, but nearly all were able to communicate their preference in quality of life issues–some to a high level. Conclusions : The vegetative state needs considerable skill to diagnose, requiring assessment over a period of time; diagnosis cannot be made, even by the most experienced clinician, from a bedside assessment. Accurate diagnosis is possible but requires the skills of a multidisciplinary team experienced in the management of people with complex disabilities. Recognition of awareness is essential if an optimal quality of life is to be achieved and to avoid inappropriate approaches to the courts for a declaration for withdrawal of tube feeding. Key messages: Many patients who are misdiagnosed as being in the vegetative state are blind or have severe visual handicap; thus lack of eye blink to threat or absence of visual tracking are not reliable signs for diagnosing the vegetative state Any motor activity, no matter how slight, that can be used for communication by the profoundly disabled patient should be identified at an early stage and repeated at regular intervals Identification of awareness in the presence of profound and complex neurological disabilities requires the skills of a multidisciplinary team expe- rienced in long term management of disability due to brain damage

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 · 10.1136/bmj.313.7048.13

Cites

7 of 7 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

Show all 7 references

Cited by

See all 819

Metadata

Authors
Andrews, K., Murphy, L., Munday, R., & Littlewood, C.
Venue
BMJ
Publisher
BMJ
Published
1996-07-06
Volume
313
Issue
7048
Pages
13-16
ISSN
  • 0007-1447 (ISSN-L)
  • 0959-8138
  • 1468-5833
OpenAlex
W2021927512
Cited by
819
References
7
FWCI
14.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Misdiagnosis of the vegetative state: retrospective study in a rehabilitation unit: Table 1. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/bmj.313.7048.13
The paper
Andrews, K., Murphy, L., Munday, R., & Littlewood, C. (1996). Misdiagnosis of the vegetative state: retrospective study in a rehabilitation unit: Table 1. BMJ. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.313.7048.13

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.