Explore the vast range of titles available.

The convergence of an interdisciplinary team of neurocritical care specialists to organize the Curing Coma Campaign is the first effort of its kind to coordinate national and international research efforts aimed at a deeper understanding of disorders of consciousness (DoC). This process of understanding includes translational research from bench to bedside, descriptions of systems of care delivery, diagnosis, treatment, rehabilitation, and ethical frameworks. The description and measurement of varying confounding factors related to hospital care was thought to be critical in furthering meaningful research in patients with DoC. Interdisciplinary hospital care is inherently varied across geographical areas as well as community and academic medical centers. Access to monitoring technologies, specialist consultation (medical, nursing, pharmacy, respiratory, and rehabilitation), staffing resources, specialty intensive and acute care units, specialty medications and specific surgical, diagnostic and interventional procedures, and imaging is variable, and the impact on patient outcome in terms of DoC is largely unknown. The heterogeneity of causes in DoC is the source of some expected variability in care and treatment of patients, which necessitated the development of a common nomenclature and set of data elements for meaningful measurement across studies. Guideline adherence in hemorrhagic stroke and severe traumatic brain injury may also be variable due to moderate or low levels of evidence for many recommendations. This article outlines the process of the development of common data elements for hospital course, confounders, and medications to streamline definitions and variables to collect for clinical studies of DoC.

Background The implementation of multimodality monitoring in the clinical management of patients with disorders of consciousness (DoC) results in physiological measurements that can be collected in a continuous and regular fashion or even at waveform resolution. Such data are considered part of the “Big Data” available in intensive care units and are potentially suitable for health care-focused artificial intelligence research. Despite the richness in content of the physiological measurements, and the clinical implications shown by derived metrics based on those measurements, they have been largely neglected from previous attempts in harmonizing data collection and standardizing reporting of results as part of common data elements (CDEs) efforts. CDEs aim to provide a framework for unifying data in clinical research and help in implementing a systematic approach that can facilitate reliable comparison of results from clinical studies in DoC as well in international research collaborations. Methods To address this need, the Neurocritical Care Society’s Curing Coma Campaign convened a multidisciplinary panel of DoC “Physiology and Big Data” experts to propose CDEs for data collection and reporting in this field. Results: We report the recommendations of this CDE development panel and disseminate CDEs to be used in physiologic and big data studies of patients with DoC. Conclusions These CDEs will support progress in the field of DoC physiologic and big data and facilitate international collaboration.

Background Electroencephalography (EEG) has long been recognized as an important tool in the investigation of disorders of consciousness (DoC). From inspection of the raw EEG to the implementation of quantitative EEG, and more recently in the use of perturbed EEG, it is paramount to providing accurate diagnostic and prognostic information in the care of patients with DoC. However, a nomenclature for variables that establishes a convention for naming, defining, and structuring data for clinical research variables currently is lacking. As such, the Neurocritical Care Society’s Curing Coma Campaign convened nine working groups composed of experts in the field to construct common data elements (CDEs) to provide recommendations for DoC, with the main goal of facilitating data collection and standardization of reporting. This article summarizes the recommendations of the electrophysiology DoC working group. Methods After assessing previously published pertinent CDEs, we developed new CDEs and categorized them into “disease core,” “basic,” “supplemental,” and “exploratory.” Key EEG design elements, defined as concepts that pertained to a methodological parameter relevant to the acquisition, processing, or analysis of data, were also included but were not classified as CDEs. Results After identifying existing pertinent CDEs and developing novel CDEs for electrophysiology in DoC, variables were organized into a framework based on the two primary categories of resting state EEG and perturbed EEG. Using this categorical framework, two case report forms were generated by the working group. Conclusions Adherence to the recommendations outlined by the electrophysiology working group in the resting state EEG and perturbed EEG case report forms will facilitate data collection and sharing in DoC research on an international level. In turn, this will allow for more informed and reliable comparison of results across studies, facilitating further advancement in the realm of DoC research.

Background The fundamental gap obstructing forward progress of evidenced-based care in pediatric and neonatal disorders of consciousness (DoC) is the lack of defining consensus-based terminology to perform comparative research. This lack of shared nomenclature in pediatric DoC stems from the inherently recursive dilemma of the inability to reliably measure consciousness in the very young. However, recent advancements in validated clinical examinations and technologically sophisticated biomarkers of brain activity linked to future abilities are unlocking this previously formidable challenge to understanding the DoC in the developing brain. Methods To address this need, the first of its kind international convergence of an interdisciplinary team of pediatric DoC experts was organized by the Neurocritical Care Society’s Curing Coma Campaign. The multidisciplinary panel of pediatric DoC experts proposed pediatric-tailored common data elements (CDEs) covering each of the CDE working groups including behavioral phenotyping, biospecimens, electrophysiology, family and goals of care, neuroimaging, outcome and endpoints, physiology and big Data, therapies, and pediatrics. Results We report the working groups’ pediatric-focused DoC CDE recommendations and disseminate CDEs to be used in studies of pediatric patients with DoC. Conclusions The CDEs recommended support the vision of progressing collaborative and successful internationally collaborative pediatric coma research.

Background Clinical management of persons with disorders of consciousness (DoC) is dedicated largely to optimizing recovery. However, selecting a measure to evaluate the extent of recovery is challenging because few measures are designed to precisely assess the full range of potential outcomes, from prolonged DoC to return of preinjury functioning. Measures that are designed specifically to assess persons with DoC are often performance-based and only validated for in-person use. Moreover, there are no published recommendations addressing which outcome measures should be used to evaluate DoC recovery. The resulting inconsistency in the measures selected by individual investigators to assess outcome prevents comparison of results across DoC studies. The National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS) common data elements (CDEs) is an amalgamation of standardized variables and tools that are recommended for use in studies of neurologic diseases and injuries. The Neurocritical Care Society Curing Coma Campaign launched an initiative to develop CDEs specifically for DoC and invited our group to recommend CDE outcomes and endpoints for persons with DoCs. Methods The Curing Coma Campaign Outcomes and Endpoints CDE Workgroup, consisting of experts in adult and pediatric neurocritical care, neurology, and neuroscience, used a previously established five-step process to identify and select candidate CDEs: (1) review of existing NINDS CDEs, (2) nomination and systematic vetting of new CDEs, (3) CDE classification, (4) iterative review and approval of panel recommendations, and (5) development of case report forms. Results Among hundreds of existing NINDS outcome and endpoint CDE measures, we identified 20 for adults and 18 for children that can be used to assess the full range of recovery from coma. We also proposed 14 new outcome and endpoint CDE measures for adults and 5 for children. Conclusions The DoC outcome and endpoint CDEs are a starting point in the broader effort to standardize outcome evaluation of persons with DoC. The ultimate goal is to harmonize DoC studies and allow for more precise assessment of outcomes after severe brain injury or illness. An iterative approach is required to modify and adjust these outcome and endpoint CDEs as new evidence emerges.

Background Over the past 5 decades, advances in neuroimaging have yielded insights into the pathophysiologic mechanisms that cause disorders of consciousness (DoC) in patients with severe brain injuries. Structural, functional, metabolic, and perfusion imaging studies have revealed specific neuroanatomic regions, such as the brainstem tegmentum, thalamus, posterior cingulate cortex, medial prefrontal cortex, and occipital cortex, where lesions correlate with the current or future state of consciousness. Advanced imaging modalities, such as diffusion tensor imaging, resting-state functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), and task-based fMRI, have been used to improve the accuracy of diagnosis and long-term prognosis, culminating in the endorsement of fMRI for the clinical evaluation of patients with DoC in the 2018 US (task-based fMRI) and 2020 European (task-based and resting-state fMRI) guidelines. As diverse neuroimaging techniques are increasingly used for patients with DoC in research and clinical settings, the need for a standardized approach to reporting results is clear. The success of future multicenter collaborations and international trials fundamentally depends on the implementation of a shared nomenclature and infrastructure. Methods To address this need, the Neurocritical Care Society’s Curing Coma Campaign convened an international panel of DoC neuroimaging experts to propose common data elements (CDEs) for data collection and reporting in this field. Results We report the recommendations of this CDE development panel and disseminate CDEs to be used in neuroimaging studies of patients with DoC. Conclusions These CDEs will support progress in the field of DoC neuroimaging and facilitate international collaboration.

Background In patients with disorders of consciousness (DoC), laboratory and molecular biomarkers may help define endotypes, identify therapeutic targets, prognosticate outcomes, and guide patient selection in clinical trials. We performed a systematic review to identify common data elements (CDEs) and key design elements (KDEs) for future coma and DoC research. Methods The Curing Coma Campaign Biospecimens and Biomarkers work group, composed of seven invited members, reviewed existing biomarker and biospecimens CDEs and conducted a systematic literature review for laboratory and molecular biomarkers using predetermined search words and standardized methodology. Identified CDEs and KDEs were adjudicated into core, basic, supplemental, or experimental CDEs per National Institutes of Health classification based on level of evidence, reproducibility, and generalizability across different diseases through a consensus process. Results Among existing National Institutes of Health CDEs, those developed for ischemic stroke, traumatic brain injury, and subarachnoid hemorrhage were most relevant to DoC and included. KDEs were common to all disease states and included biospecimen collection time points, baseline indicator, biological source, anatomical location of collection, collection method, and processing and storage methodology. Additionally, two disease core, nine basic, 24 supplemental, and 59 exploratory biomarker CDEs were identified. Results were summarized and generated into a Laboratory Data and Biospecimens Case Report Form (CRF) and underwent public review. A final CRF version 1.0 is reported here. Conclusions Exponential growth in biomarkers development has generated a growing number of potential experimental biomarkers associated with DoC, but few meet the quality, reproducibility, and generalizability criteria to be classified as core and basic biomarker and biospecimen CDEs. Identification and adaptation of KDEs, however, contribute to standardizing methodology to promote harmonization of future biomarker and biospecimens studies in DoC. Development of this CRF serves as a basic building block for future DoC studies.

Background To facilitate comparative research, it is essential for the fields of neurocritical care and rehabilitation to establish common data elements (CDEs) for disorders of consciousness (DoC). Our objective was to identify CDEs related to goals-of-care decisions and family/surrogate decision-making for patients with DoC. Methods To achieve this, we formed nine CDE working groups as part of the Neurocritical Care Society’s Curing Coma Campaign. Our working group focused on goals-of-care decisions and family/surrogate decision-makers created five subgroups: (1) clinical variables of surrogates, (2) psychological distress of surrogates, (3) decision-making quality, (4) quality of communication, and (5) quality of end-of-life care. Each subgroup searched for existing relevant CDEs in the National Institutes of Health/CDE catalog and conducted an extensive literature search for additional relevant study instruments to be recommended. We classified each CDE according to the standard definitions of “core”, “basic”, “exploratory”, or “supplemental”, as well as their use for studying the acute or chronic phase of DoC, or both. Results We identified 32 relevant preexisting National Institutes of Health CDEs across all subgroups. A total of 34 new instruments were added across all subgroups. Only one CDE was recommended as disease core, the “mode of death” of the patient from the clinical variables subgroup. Conclusions Our findings provide valuable CDEs specific to goals-of-care decisions and family/surrogate decision-making for patients with DoC that can be used to standardize studies to generate high-quality and reproducible research in this area.

The aim of this study is to investigate the prognostic value of using the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS) standardized imaging-based pathoanatomic descriptors for the evaluation and reporting of acute traumatic brain injury (TBI) lesions. For a total of 3392 patients (2244 males and 1148 females, median age = 51 years) enrolled in the Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury (CENTER-TBI) study, we extracted 96 Common Data Elements (CDEs) from the structured reports, spanning all three levels of pathoanatomic information (i.e., 20 “basic,” 60 “descriptive,” and 16 “advanced” CDE variables per patient). Six-month clinical outcome scores were dichotomized into favorable (Glasgow Outcome Scale Extended [GOS-E] = 5-8) versus unfavorable (GOS-E = 1-4). Regularized logistic regression models were constructed and compared using the optimism-corrected area under the curve (AUC). An abnormality was reported for the majority of patients (64.51%). In 79.11% of those patients, there was at least one coexisting pathoanatomic lesion or associated finding. An increase in lesion severity, laterality, and volume was associated with more unfavorable outcomes. Compared with the full set of pathoanatomic descriptors (i.e., all three categories of information), reporting “basic” CDE information provides at least equal discrimination between patients with favorable versus unfavorable outcome (AUC = 0.8121 vs. 0.8155, respectively). Addition of a selected subset of “descriptive” detail to the basic CDEs could improve outcome prediction (AUC = 0.8248). Addition of “advanced” or “emerging/exploratory” information had minimal prognostic value. Our results show that the NINDS standardized-imaging based pathoanatomic descriptors can be used in large-scale studies and provide important insights into acute TBI lesion patterns. When used in clinical predictive models, they can provide excellent discrimination between patients with favorable and unfavorable 6-month outcomes. If further validated, our findings could support the development of structured and itemized templates in routine clinical radiology.

The Common Data Elements (CDEs) initiative is a National Institutes of Health (NIH) interagency effort to standardize naming, definitions, and data structure for clinical research variables. Comparisons of the results of clinical studies of neurological disorders have been hampered by variability in data coding, definitions, and procedures for sample collection. The CDE project objective is to enable comparison of future clinical trials results in major neurological disorders, including traumatic brain injury (TBI), stroke, multiple sclerosis, and epilepsy. As part of this effort, recommendations for CDEs for research on TBI were developed through a 2009 multi-agency initiative. Following the initial recommendations of the Working Group on Demographics and Clinical Assessment, a separate workgroup developed recommendations on the coding of clinical and demographic variables specific to pediatric TBI studies for subjects younger than 18 years. This article summarizes the selection of measures by the Pediatric TBI Demographics and Clinical Assessment Working Group. The variables are grouped into modules which are grouped into categories. For consistency with other CDE working groups, each variable was classified by priority (core, supplemental, and emerging). Templates were produced to summarize coding formats, guide selection of data points, and provide procedural recommendations. This proposed standardization, together with the products of the other pediatric TBI working groups in imaging, biomarkers, and outcome assessment, will facilitate multi-center studies, comparison of results across studies, and high-quality meta-analyses of individual patient data.