1 uding 2 deaths and 2 women who remained in a persistent vegetative state.

2 rtical structures) virtually synonymous with persistent vegetative state.

3 severely disabled (39% vs 10%), survive in a persistent vegetative state (13% vs 2%), or have died (3

4 urs and patients had a CPC of 4.6 (0.7) (4 = persistent vegetative state; 5 = death).

5 tion, fueling arguments over misdiagnosis of persistent vegetative state and raising false hopes for

6                              Interest in the persistent vegetative state has focused on the accuracy

7  review the current medical understanding of persistent vegetative state, including the requirements

8                Greater clarity regarding the persistent vegetative state, less apprehension of the pr

9                 Outcomes were categorized as persistent vegetative state or death vs. awakening.

10         In a report of a single patient in a persistent vegetative state, Owen et al. claimed that th

11  The best care and management of patients in persistent vegetative state (PVS) has been the subject o

12                  To study five patients in a persistent vegetative state (PVS) with different behavio

13 efined pathologies of wakefulness: coma, the persistent vegetative state, the 'locked-in' syndrome, a

14 confusion lingers regarding the diagnosis of persistent vegetative state, the judicial processes invo