Extended Data Fig. 1: Distribution of DoC-team prognosis and implementation of individual markers over the study period. | Nature Medicine

Extended Data Fig. 1: Distribution of DoC-team prognosis and implementation of individual markers over the study period.

From: Multimodal assessment improves neuroprognosis performance in clinically unresponsive critical-care patients with brain injury

Extended Data Fig. 1

When split on the median ( ≥ or < 2016), there is a significant decrease in the proportion of “uncertain” prognosis with a relative increase of “poor” prognosis (54.84% vs 36.48%, OR = 0.47 [95%CI: 0.29 - 0.76], P = 0.001 and 25.81% vs 38.99%, OR = 1.83 [95%CI: 1.11 – 3.06], P = 0.016, respectively) with no difference in terms of “good” prognosis (19.35%, vs 24.53%, OR = 1.35 [95%CI: 0.76 - 2.41], P = 0.279), accuracy (73.21% vs 78.95%, OR = 1.37 [95%CI: 0.58 – 3.16], P = 0.431) and WLST (26.5% vs 34.51%, OR = 1.46 [95%CI: 0.83 - 2.60], P = 0.179). Two-sided Fisher’s exact test used with no adjustment for multiple comparisons. CRS-r: Coma Recovery Scale revised; (q)EEG: (quantitative) Electroencephalography; SSEP: Somatosensory Evoked potential; ERP: Event Related Potential (‘Local-Global’ paradigm); FA Fractional Anisotropy; FOUR: Full Outline of UnResponsiveness Score; RS-fMRI: Resting state – functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging; PET: Positron Emission Tomography; DoC: Disorder of Consciousness; hASR: habituation of Auditory Startle Reflex; CMD: Cognitive Motor Dissociation. *: for % Accuracy and % WLST the percentages are provided on n = 277 and 259, respectively.

Back to article page