Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 319

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 67 of the 67 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Preserved consciousness in vegetative and minimal conscious states: systematic review and meta-analysis

Kondziella, Daniel, Friberg, Christian K, Frokjaer, Vibe G, Fabricius, Martin, Møller, Kirsten·2016·Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry

Abstract

Active, passive and resting state paradigms using functional MRI (fMRI) or EEG may reveal consciousness in the vegetative (VS) and the minimal conscious state (MCS). A meta-analysis was performed to assess the prevalence of preserved consciousness in VS and MCS as revealed by fMRI and EEG, including command following (active paradigms), cortical functional connectivity elicited by external stimuli (passive paradigms) and default mode networks (resting state). Studies were selected from multiple indexing databases until February 2015 and evaluated using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2. 37 studies were identified, including 1041 patients (mean age 43 years, range 16-89; male/female 2.1:1; 39.5% traumatic brain injuries). MCS patients were more likely than VS patients to follow commands during active paradigms (32% vs 14%; OR 2.85 (95% CI 1.90 to 4.27; p<0.0001)) and to show preserved functional cortical connectivity during passive paradigms (55% vs 26%; OR 3.53 (95% CI 2.49 to 4.99; p<0.0001)). Passive paradigms suggested preserved consciousness more often than active paradigms (38% vs 24%; OR 1.98 (95% CI 1.54 to 2.54; p<0.0001)). Data on resting state paradigms were insufficient for statistical evaluation. In conclusion, active paradigms may underestimate the degree of consciousness as compared to passive paradigms. While MCS patients show signs of preserved consciousness more frequently in both paradigms, roughly 15% of patients with a clinical diagnosis of VS are able to follow commands by modifying their brain activity. However, there remain important limitations at the single-subject level; for example, patients from both categories may show command following despite negative passive paradigms.

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/jnnp-2015-310958

Cites

67 of 67 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 67 references

Cited by

See all 319

Metadata

Authors
Kondziella, D., Friberg, C. K., Frokjaer, V. G., Fabricius, M., & Møller, K.
Venue
Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2015-07-02
Volume
87
Issue
5
Pages
485-492
ISSN
  • 0022-3050 (ISSN-L)
  • 1468-330X
OpenAlex
W2295745326
Cited by
319
References
67
FWCI
2.30
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

How to cite

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

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Preserved consciousness in vegetative and minimal conscious states: systematic review and meta-analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/jnnp-2015-310958
The paper
Kondziella, D., Friberg, C. K., Frokjaer, V. G., Fabricius, M., & Møller, K. (2016). Preserved consciousness in vegetative and minimal conscious states: systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry. https://doi.org/10.1136/jnnp-2015-310958

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.