2002
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.cd001427
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Sensory stimulation for brain injured individuals in coma or vegetative state

Abstract: BackgroundComa and vegetative state follow traumatic brain injury in about one out of eight patients, and in patients with non traumatic injury the prognosis is worse. The use of sensory stimulation for coma and vegetative state has gained popularity during the 1980's but beliefs and opinions about its e ectiveness vary substantially among health professionals. ObjectivesTo assess the e ectiveness of sensory stimulation programmes in patients in coma or vegetative state. Search methodsWe searched the Injuries … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
39
0
5

Year Published

2005
2005
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
7
2
1

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 50 publications
(44 citation statements)
references
References 36 publications
0
39
0
5
Order By: Relevance
“…Other treatments A wide range of other treatments, including structured sensory stimulation, 163 repetitive TMS, 164 hyperbaric oxygen, 165 and various dopaminergic and GABAergic medications, 166 have been administered to patients with DOCs, but the evidence is insufficient to formulate r ecommendations regarding their use in clinical practice.…”
Section: Pharmacological Interventionsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Other treatments A wide range of other treatments, including structured sensory stimulation, 163 repetitive TMS, 164 hyperbaric oxygen, 165 and various dopaminergic and GABAergic medications, 166 have been administered to patients with DOCs, but the evidence is insufficient to formulate r ecommendations regarding their use in clinical practice.…”
Section: Pharmacological Interventionsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…It is well known, however, that vigilance and awareness fluctuate in such patients, resulting in variable behaviors and cognitive performances. [2][3][4] At present, there is no standard description of the different vigilance states in VS/UWS and MCS patients.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Cumulative findings from these studies indicate that the evidence is insufficient to firmly conclude that these interventions improve neurologic outcome. 30 However, 1 study was done specifically to investigate the effects of familiar voices (ie, family members) versus unfamiliar voices on ICP values. 31 That study showed no significant change in ICP associated with verbal stimuli and no difference between the effects of familiar and unfamiliar voices on patients' ICP values, indicating that this intervention is safe and can be performed by family and ICU staff.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%