The importance of polysomnography in the evaluation of prolonged disorders of consciousness: sleep recordings more adequately correlate than stimulus-related evoked potentials with patients’ clinical status

Biase, Stefano de; Gigli, Gian Luigi; Lorenzut, Simone; Bianconi, C.; Sfreddo, Patrizia; Rossato, Gianluca; Basaldella, Federica; Fuccaro, Matteo; Corica, Antonio; Tonon, Davide; Barbone, Fabio; Valente, Mariarosaria

doi:10.1016/j.sleep.2013.09.026

Cited by 59 publications

(38 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The MMN did not differ between the two groups. Consistently with Boly et al (2004) and with Fischer et al (2010), de Biase et al (2014) also did not find significant differences in the BAEPs of patients with VS ( n = 27) and MCS ( n = 5) diagnosis.…”

Section: Stimulus-dependent Neurophysiological Assessments: Processinsupporting

confidence: 75%

“…The EEG frequency power spectra also did not discriminate significantly between MCS and VS, in none of the frequency bands. With a similar experiment, de Biase et al (2014) reported that SEPs in patients diagnosed as in VS ( n = 27) and as in MCS ( n = 5) during median nerve stimulation could not differentiate between the two groups.…”

Section: Stimulus-dependent Neurophysiological Assessments: Processinmentioning

confidence: 88%

“…These findings indicate that a differentiation between the VS and MCS categories on the basis of the processing of auditory and visual stimuli is not always possible (Kotchoubey et al, 2005; Cavinato et al, 2011; de Biase et al, 2014). Moreover, clear-cut differentiations between the two groups are complicated by the violation of the hierarchic hypothesis (Kotchoubey et al, 2005), such that patients with a VS diagnosis who do not present early EEG responses may indeed exhibit higher-latency responses relative to more complex processing, possibly due to spared modular cognitive abilities.…”

Section: Stimulus-dependent Neurophysiological Assessments: Processinmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…de Biase et al (2014) assessed EEG sleep patterns during 24 h on patients diagnosed as in VS ( n = 27) and as in MCS ( n = 5). More specifically, the authors investigated the presence of a sleep-wake cycle, sleep spindles, rapid eye movement (REM), and K-complexes (i.e., indicators of non-REM sleep).…”

Section: Stimulus-independent Physiological and Neurophysiological Asmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The only comparison relative to visual evoked potentials (VEPs) was performed by de Biase et al (2014), who used flash stimuli with patients with a VS ( n = 27) and a MCS ( n = 5) diagnosis. VEPs were not significantly different in the two groups.…”

Section: Stimulus-dependent Neurophysiological Assessments: Processinmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Questioning the dichotomy between vegetative state and minimally conscious state: a review of the statistical evidence

Liberati

Hünefeldt

Belardinelli

2014

Front. Hum. Neurosci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Given the enormous consequences that the diagnosis of vegetative state (VS) vs. minimally conscious state (MCS) may have for the treatment of patients with disorders of consciousness, it is particularly important to empirically legitimate the distinction between these two discrete levels of consciousness. Therefore, the aim of this contribution is to review all the articles reporting statistical evidence concerning the performance of patients in VS vs. patients in MCS, on behavioral or neurophysiological measures. Twenty-three articles matched these inclusion criteria, and comprised behavioral, electroencephalographic (EEG), positron emission tomography (PET) and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) measures. The analysis of these articles yielded 47 different statistical findings. More than half of these findings (n = 24) did not reveal any statistically significant difference between VS and MCS. Overall, there was no combination of variables that allowed reliably discriminating between VS and MCS. This pattern of results casts doubt on the empirical validity of the distinction between VS and MCS.

show abstract

Section: Stimulus-dependent Neurophysiological Assessments: Processinsupporting

confidence: 75%

Section: Stimulus-dependent Neurophysiological Assessments: Processinmentioning

confidence: 88%

Section: Stimulus-dependent Neurophysiological Assessments: Processinmentioning

confidence: 96%

Section: Stimulus-independent Physiological and Neurophysiological Asmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Stimulus-dependent Neurophysiological Assessments: Processinmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Questioning the dichotomy between vegetative state and minimally conscious state: a review of the statistical evidence

Liberati

Hünefeldt

Belardinelli

2014

Front. Hum. Neurosci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Sleep‐Wake Disorders

Sheperis,

Calley,

Jones‐Trebatoski

et al. 2015

Diagnosing and Treating Children and Adolescents

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

MCASleepNet: Multimodal Channel Attention-Based Deep Neural Network for Automatic Sleep Staging

Yu,

Chen,

Pan

2023

Lecture Notes in Computer Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The importance of polysomnography in the evaluation of prolonged disorders of consciousness: sleep recordings more adequately correlate than stimulus-related evoked potentials with patients’ clinical status

Cited by 59 publications

References 33 publications

Questioning the dichotomy between vegetative state and minimally conscious state: a review of the statistical evidence

Questioning the dichotomy between vegetative state and minimally conscious state: a review of the statistical evidence

Sleep‐Wake Disorders

MCASleepNet: Multimodal Channel Attention-Based Deep Neural Network for Automatic Sleep Staging

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About