ArticleThe journal of extra-corporeal technology2011
To do or not to do?--How people make decisions.
Article in The journal of extra-corporeal technology, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Review
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
Outcomes in healthcare depend a great deal on the quality of decisions made by the people who care for patients. In the early days of cardiac surgery decisions were often made on the basis of authority by surgeons with broadly based knowledge and skill, developed through extensive training and very long hours of work. The philosophy of the "captain of the ship" prevailed. The advent of much greater specialization and the emergence of evidence based medicine have led to a shift to a model of decision making in which expertise trumps authority. There has also been a reduction in the length of hours worked by many doctors, and greater emphasis on involving patients in decisions about their own healthcare. The framework for understanding human error has been refined on the basis of empirical and theoretical considerations, and much importance is now placed on the way in which the system as a whole is designed. Unfortunately the complexity of healthcare today is such that some of its properties are best explained through analogies to chaos theory. Furthermore, empirical work suggests that human beings are clearly strong at recognizing patterns, and are less adroit at analyzing complex and unfamiliar situations from first principles in a short time. It follows that the very extensive experience of some of the older practitioners may have been more valuable in decision making than many of the very reasonable and logical advances that have influenced modern practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
21449239PMC4680096What 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.