Diagnostic test accuracy for cessation of circulation during death determination: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To synthesize the available evidence comparing noninvasive methods of measuring the cessation of circulation in patients who are potential organ donors undergoing death determination by circulatory criteria (DCC) with the current accepted standard of invasive arterial blood pressure (IAP) monitoring. SOURCE: We searched (from inception until 27 April 2021) MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. We screened citations and manuscripts independently and in duplicate for eligible studies that compared noninvasive methodologies assessing circulation in patients who were monitored around a period of cessation of circulation. We performed risk of bias assessment, data abstraction, and quality assessment using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation in duplicate and independently. We presented findings narratively. PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We included 21 eligible studies (N = 1,177 patients). Meta-analysis was not possible because of study heterogeneity. We identified low quality evidence from four indirect studies (n = 89) showing pulse palpation is less sensitive and specific than IAP (reported sensitivity range, 0.76-0.90; specificity, 0.41-0.79). Isoelectric electrocardiogram (ECG) had excellent specificity for death (two studies; 0% [0/510]), but likely increases the average time to death determination (moderate quality evidence). We are uncertain whether point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) pulse check, cerebral near-infrared spectroscopy (NIRS), or POCUS cardiac motion assessment are accurate tests for the determination of circulatory cessation (very low-quality evidence). CONCLUSION: There is insufficient evidence that ECG, POCUS pulse check, cerebral NIRS, or POCUS cardiac motion assessment are superior or equivalent to IAP for DCC in the setting of organ donation. Isoelectric ECG is specific but can increase the time needed to determine death. Point-of-care ultrasound techniques are emerging therapies with promising initial data but are limited by indirectness and imprecision. STUDY REGISTRATION: PROSPERO (CRD42021258936); first submitted 16 June 2021.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.022 | 0.135 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.018 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".