ReviewCritical care (London, England)2006
Ethics review: position papers and policies--are they really helpful to front-line ICU teams?
Review in Critical care (London, England), 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Practices in Triage and Transfer of Critically Ill Patients: A Qualitative Systematic Review of Selection Criteria.Critical care medicine · 2020Pooled it
- Better Regulation of End-Of-Life Care: A Call For A Holistic Approach.Journal of bioethical inquiry · 2022Article
- COVID 19: are South African junior doctors prepared for critical care management outside the intensive care unit?The Pan African medical journal · 2021Article
- Balancing Patient and Societal Interests in Decisions About Potentially Life-Sustaining Treatment : An Australian Policy Analysis.Journal of bioethical inquiry · 2020Review
- The Critical Care Society of Southern Africa Consensus Statement on ICU Triage and Rationing (ConICTri).The Southern African journal of critical care : the official journal of the Critical Care Society · 2019Article
- Altered standards of care during an influenza pandemic: identifying ethical, legal, and practical principles to guide decision making.Disaster medicine and public health preparedness · 2009Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
During the past few years the ethics sections of critical care societies have proposed a number of policies describing the goals of intensive care unit (ICU) care and providing broad guidance on the diagnoses and physiological criteria that would mandate using the specialized skill and technologies of an ICU environment. Discussions on what constitutes appropriate use of such scarce resources, incorporating cultural and religious beliefs and exploring how they interact with these medical criteria, remain vague. To date, these policies do not provide any definitive guidance in the difficult decision making faced by clinicians. Some argue that they were never meant to do so and yet they have served to guide the development of local hospital policies. Many have explored how critical care services are allocated without achieving consensus on the best way to achieve fair and equitable access to life-sustaining interventions. A consensus is needed though, one that is reflective of both individual and societal values and goals. Otherwise, increasing pressure to provide treatments with marginal benefits at best will threaten the ability of others to access treatments that may offer them very real benefits.
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.