Suppr超能文献

永久性植物状态的诊断错误有多频繁?对证据的回顾。

How often is the diagnosis of the permanent vegetative state incorrect? A review of the evidence.

机构信息

OxINMAHR, and Movement Science Group, Faculty of Health and Life Sciences, Oxford Brookes University, Oxford, UK.

出版信息

Eur J Neurol. 2018 Apr;25(4):619-625. doi: 10.1111/ene.13572. Epub 2018 Feb 16.

Abstract

Some research suggests that 40% of people in the vegetative state are misdiagnosed. This review investigates the frequency, nature and causes of reported misdiagnosis of patients in the vegetative state, focusing on the nature of the error. It is a systematic review of all relevant literature, using references from key papers identified. The data are summarized in tables. Five clinical studies of the rate of misdiagnosis in practice were identified, encompassing 236 patients in the vegetative state of whom 80 (34%) were reclassified as having some awareness, often minimal. The studies often included patients in the recovery phase after acute injury, and were poorly reported. Five systematic reviews of signs and technologically based neurophysiological tests were identified, and they showed that most studies were small, lacked accurate or important details, and were subject to bias. Studies were not replicated. Many signs and tests did not differ between people in the vegetative state and in the minimally conscious state, and those that did were unable to diagnose an individual patient. The few single case reports suggest that failure to ensure an accurate diagnosis of the underlying neurological damage and dysfunction could, rarely, lead to significant misdiagnosis usually in patients who had brain-stem damage with little thalamic or cortical damage. Significant misdiagnosis of awareness, with an apparently 'vegetative' patient having good awareness, is rare. Careful neurological assessment of the cause and routine measurement of awareness using the Coma Recovery Scale - Revised should further reduce mistakes.

摘要

一些研究表明,40%处于植物人状态的人被误诊。本综述调查了报告的植物人误诊的频率、性质和原因,重点关注错误的性质。这是对所有相关文献的系统综述,使用了从关键论文中确定的参考文献。数据总结在表格中。确定了五项关于实践中误诊率的临床研究,共纳入 236 名处于植物人状态的患者,其中 80 名(34%)重新分类为具有一定意识,通常是最小意识。这些研究通常包括急性损伤后恢复阶段的患者,并且报告质量较差。确定了五项关于迹象和基于技术的神经生理学测试的系统综述,结果表明,大多数研究规模较小,缺乏准确或重要的细节,并且存在偏倚。研究未被复制。许多迹象和测试在植物人和最小意识状态之间没有区别,而那些有区别的测试也无法诊断个别患者。少数单个病例报告表明,未能确保准确诊断潜在的神经损伤和功能障碍,可能会导致罕见的重大误诊,通常是在脑干损伤而丘脑或皮质损伤较少的患者中。明显“植物人”患者具有良好意识的明显意识的误诊很少见。仔细评估病因的神经学评估和使用昏迷恢复量表 - 修订版常规测量意识,应进一步减少错误。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验