Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,236

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Practice Parameter: Prediction of outcome in comatose survivors after cardiopulmonary resuscitation (an evidence-based review) [RETIRED]: Report of the Quality Standards Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology

Open access
·2006·Neurology

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To systematically review outcomes in comatose survivors after cardiac arrest and cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). METHODS: The authors analyzed studies (1966 to 2006) that explored predictors of death or unconsciousness after 1 month or unconsciousness or severe disability after 6 months. RESULTS: The authors identified four class I studies, three class II studies, and five class III studies on clinical findings and circumstances. The indicators of poor outcome after CPR are absent pupillary light response or corneal reflexes, and extensor or no motor response to pain after 3 days of observation (level A), and myoclonus status epilepticus (level B). Prognosis cannot be based on circumstances of CPR (level B) or elevated body temperature (level C). The authors identified one class I, one class II, and nine class III studies on electrophysiology. Bilateral absent cortical responses on somatosensory evoked potential studies recorded 3 days after CPR predicted poor outcome (level B). Burst suppression or generalized epileptiform discharges on EEG predicted poor outcomes but with insufficient prognostic accuracy (level C). The authors identified one class I, 11 class III, and three class IV studies on biochemical markers. Serum neuron-specific enolase higher than 33 microg/L predicted poor outcome (level B). Ten class IV studies on brain monitoring and neuroimaging did not provide data to support or refute usefulness in prognostication (level U). CONCLUSION: Pupillary light response, corneal reflexes, motor responses to pain, myoclonus status epilepticus, serum neuron-specific enolase, and somatosensory evoked potential studies can reliably assist in accurately predicting poor outcome in comatose patients after cardiopulmonary resuscitation for cardiac arrest.

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 · 10.1212/01.wnl.0000227183.21314.cd

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.

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

Cited by

See all 1,236

Metadata

Venue
Neurology
Published
2006-07-25
Volume
67
Issue
2
Pages
203-210
ISSN
  • 0028-3878 (ISSN-L)
  • 1526-632X
OpenAlex
W2106449448
Cited by
1,236
References
0
FWCI
63.76
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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: Practice Parameter: Prediction of outcome in comatose survivors after cardiopulmonary resuscitation (an evidence-based review) [RETIRED]: Report of the Quality Standards Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1212/01.wnl.0000227183.21314.cd
The paper
Practice Parameter: Prediction of outcome in comatose survivors after cardiopulmonary resuscitation (an evidence-based review) [RETIRED]: Report of the Quality Standards Subcommittee of the American Academy of Neurology. (2006). Neurology. https://doi.org/10.1212/01.wnl.0000227183.21314.cd

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.