ArticleEuropean journal of pediatrics2003
Acute loss of the small bowel in a school-age boy. Difficult choices: to sustain life or to stop treatment?
Article in European journal of pediatrics, 2003. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
unlabelledA 9-year-old boy lost almost all his small bowel after an acute volvulus due to a congenital, but previously unsuspected malrotation. Survival using total parenteral nutrition is possible in these cases, but the medical burden is heavy. Small intestinal transplantation was performed for the first time in the Netherlands in 2001 and this patient was treated 3 years earlier. The results of bowel transplantation are not as good as in kidney or liver transplantation. A method of Ethical Case Deliberation helped to elucidate the importance of each contribution in the discussion and provided space and a broad basis for decision-making. The parents refused to allow parenteral nutrition to be started because of the bad prospects for quality of life in the future and the medical team, after thorough deliberation with specialists throughout the country, and consultation of the literature, agreed.
conclusionDespite the many different opinions, the parents felt accepted in their refusal of treatment for their son and the team accepted the decision.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.