The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Diagnostic accuracy of the vegetative and minimally conscious state: Clinical consensus versus standardized neurobehavioral assessment
Open accessAbstract
Background: Previously published studies have reported that up to 43% of patients with disorders of consciousness are erroneously assigned a diagnosis of vegetative state (VS). However, no recent studies have investigated the accuracy of this grave clinical diagnosis. In this study, we compared consensus-based diagnoses of VS and MCS to those based on a well-established standardized neurobehavioral rating scale, the JFK Coma Recovery Scale-Revised (CRS-R). Methods: We prospectively followed 103 patients (55 ± 19 years) with mixed etiologies and compared the clinical consensus diagnosis provided by the physician on the basis of the medical staff's daily observations to diagnoses derived from CRS-R assessments performed by research staff. All patients were assigned a diagnosis of 'VS', 'MCS' or 'uncertain diagnosis.' Results: Of the 44 patients diagnosed with VS based on the clinical consensus of the medical team, 18 (41%) were found to be in MCS following standardized assessment with the CRS-R. In the 41 patients with a consensus diagnosis of MCS, 4 (10%) had emerged from MCS, according to the CRS-R. We also found that the majority of patients assigned an uncertain diagnosis by clinical consensus (89%) were in MCS based on CRS-R findings. Conclusion: Despite the importance of diagnostic accuracy, the rate of misdiagnosis of VS has not substantially changed in the past 15 years. Standardized neurobehavioral assessment is a more sensitive means of establishing differential diagnosis in patients with disorders of consciousness when compared to diagnoses determined by clinical consensus.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
ASSESSMENT OF COMA AND IMPAIRED CONSCIOUSNESS
Teasdale, G., & Jennett, B. (1974) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(74)91639-0 · Cited by 13,215
The minimally conscious state: Definition and diagnostic criteria
Giacino, J. T., Ashwal, S., Childs, N., Cranford, R., Jennett, B., Katz, D. I., Kelly, J. P., Rosenberg, J. H., Whyte, J., Zafonte, R. D., et al. (2002) · Neurology · doi:10.1212/wnl.58.3.349 · Cited by 2,422
Self-citation
Cited by
Neural correlates of consciousness: progress and problems
Koch, C., Massimini, M., Boly, M., & Tononi, G. (2016) · Nature Reviews Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nrn.2016.22 · Cited by 1,600
Self-citationVanhaudenhuyse, A., Noirhomme, Q., Tshibanda, L. J.-F., Bruno, M.-A., Boveroux, P., Schnakers, C., Soddu, A., Perlbarg, V., Ledoux, D., Brichant, J.-F., et al. (2010) · Brain · doi:10.1093/brain/awp313 · Cited by 911
Self-citationGiacino, J. T., Katz, D. I., Schiff, N. D., Whyte, J., Ashman, E. J., Ashwal, S., Barbano, R., Hammond, F. M., Laureys, S., Ling, G. S. F., et al. (2018) · Neurology · doi:10.1212/wnl.0000000000005926 · Cited by 773
Self-citationSignature of consciousness in the dynamics of resting-state brain activity
Barttfeld, P., Uhrig, L., Sitt, J. D., Sigman, M., Jarraya, B., & Dehaene, S. (2015) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1418031112 · Cited by 670
Recovery from disorders of consciousness: mechanisms, prognosis and emerging therapies
Edlow, B. L., Claassen, J., Schiff, N. D., & Greer, D. M. (2021) · Nature Reviews Neurology · doi:10.1038/s41582-020-00428-x · Cited by 731
Metadata
- Authors
- Schnakers, C., Vanhaudenhuyse, A., Giacino, J., Ventura, M., Boly, M., Majerus, S., Moonen, G., & Laureys, S.
- Venue
- BMC Neurology
- Published
- 2009-07-21
- Volume
- 9
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 35-35
- ISSN
- 1471-2377 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2152325645
- Cited by
- 1,348
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 37.01
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
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: Diagnostic accuracy of the vegetative and minimally conscious state: Clinical consensus versus standardized neurobehavioral assessment. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1186/1471-2377-9-35
- The paper
- Schnakers, C., Vanhaudenhuyse, A., Giacino, J., Ventura, M., Boly, M., Majerus, S., Moonen, G., & Laureys, S. (2009). Diagnostic accuracy of the vegetative and minimally conscious state: Clinical consensus versus standardized neurobehavioral assessment. BMC Neurology. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2377-9-35
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.