Evidence map›Paper›PMID 10622776›Full record

ArticlePostgraduate medical journal2000

Not if, but how: one way to talk with patients about forgoing life support.

R Löfmark, T Nilstun

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Postgraduate medical journal, 2000. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

R LöfmarkDepartment of Medicine, Länssjukhuset, SE-801 87 Gävle, Sweden.
T Nilstun

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

May the common clinical conversation be used to explore whether or not seriously ill patients want to talk about possible limitations of life support? In order to answer this question, a series of 20 seriously ill patients took part in an interview. The clinical conversations were taped and transcribed, and recurrent themes were identified and organised into categories. After talking about their diagnosis and prognosis, most patients said it was natural to talk about possible limitations of life support, and a substantial number immediately indicated that they did not want any life-sustaining treatment. Although their emotional reactions were different, no one seemed to be upset by talking about such issues. Many but not all patients said that they wanted a family member and possibly also a nurse to participate in the conversation. Every doctor learns to conduct a clinical conversation and this approach may be applied when talking with seriously ill patients about difficult treatment decisions.

Indexed as

CommunicationAttitude to HealthEmotionsHumansLife Support CarePrognosisTerminal CareDeath and EuthanasiaEmpirical Approach

Identifiers

PMID10622776
PMCPMC1741459

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.