Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21449239›Full record

ArticleThe journal of extra-corporeal technology2011

To do or not to do?--How people make decisions.

Alan F Merry

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

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. Review
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

1 author.

Alan F MerryDepartment of Anaesthesiology, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand. a.merry@auckland.ac.nz

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Attitude of Health PersonnelDecision MakingModels, TheoreticalObserver VariationAge FactorsDecision Support Systems, ClinicalDecision TheoryHumansIatrogenic Disease

Identifiers

PMID21449239
PMCPMC4680096

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.