↓ Skip to main content

A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Relationship Between Brain Data and the Outcome in Disorders of Consciousness

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Neurology, May 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (82nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
22 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
42 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
80 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Relationship Between Brain Data and the Outcome in Disorders of Consciousness
Published in
Frontiers in Neurology, May 2018
DOI 10.3389/fneur.2018.00315
Pubmed ID
Authors

Boris Kotchoubey, Yuri G. Pavlov

Abstract

A systematic search revealed 68 empirical studies of neurophysiological [EEG, event-related brain potential (ERP), fMRI, PET] variables as potential outcome predictors in patients with Disorders of Consciousness (diagnoses Unresponsive Wakefulness Syndrome [UWS] and Minimally Conscious State [MCS]). Data of 47 publications could be presented in a quantitative manner and systematically reviewed. Insufficient power and the lack of an appropriate description of patient selection each characterized about a half of all publications. In more than 80% studies, neurologists who evaluated the patients' outcomes were familiar with the results of neurophysiological tests conducted before, and may, therefore, have been influenced by this knowledge. In most subsamples of datasets, effect size significantly correlated with its standard error, indicating publication bias toward positive results. Neurophysiological data predicted the transition from UWS to MCS substantially better than they predicted the recovery of consciousness (i.e., the transition from UWS or MCS to exit-MCS). A meta-analysis was carried out for predictor groups including at least three independent studies with N > 10 per predictor per improvement criterion (i.e., transition to MCS versus recovery). Oscillatory EEG responses were the only predictor group whose effect attained significance for both improvement criteria. Other perspective variables, whose true prognostic value should be explored in future studies, are sleep spindles in the EEG and the somatosensory cortical response N20. Contrary to what could be expected on the basis of neuroscience theory, the poorest prognostic effects were shown for fMRI responses to stimulation and for the ERP component P300. The meta-analytic results should be regarded as preliminary given the presence of numerous biases in the data.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 22 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 80 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 80 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 13 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 12 15%
Student > Bachelor 11 14%
Student > Master 8 10%
Other 6 8%
Other 14 18%
Unknown 16 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 19 24%
Psychology 14 18%
Medicine and Dentistry 9 11%
Engineering 5 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 4%
Other 8 10%
Unknown 22 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 12. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 21 December 2019.
All research outputs
#3,157,511
of 26,216,692 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neurology
#1,783
of 14,904 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#60,142
of 345,055 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neurology
#32
of 287 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,216,692 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 14,904 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 345,055 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 287 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.