Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21788961›Full record

ReviewNature reviews. Cardiology2011

Effective communication and ethical consent in decisions related to ICDs.

Alexander M Clark, Tiny Jaarsma, Patricia Strachan, Patricia M Davidson, Megan Jerke, James M Beattie, Amanda S Duncan, Chantal F Ski, David R Thompson

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Nature reviews. Cardiology, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
3.1field-weighted citation impact, top 8% of its field
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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 33 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

9 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.

Alexander M ClarkFaculty of Nursing, University of Alberta, Level 3 CSB, Edmonton, AB TG3 2G3, Canada. alex.clark@ualberta.ca
Tiny Jaarsma
Patricia Strachan
Patricia M Davidson
Megan Jerke
James M Beattie
Amanda S Duncan
Chantal F Ski
David R Thompson
University of Alberta · CAAustralian Catholic University · AUCurtin University · AUHeartlands Hospital · GBMcMaster University · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This Review examines recommendations and principles that promote good decision-making with regard to the insertion, deactivation, and potential malfunction of implantable cardioverter-defibrillators (ICDs). This guidance is important because ICDs are now used for primary and secondary prevention of arrhythmias in more than 20 diverse clinical populations, which accounts for the exponential increase in insertion rates over the past decade. Current guidelines require clinicians to provide personalized, culturally appropriate, and easy to understand information to patients on the benefits and harms of proposed treatment choices; however, obtaining valid informed consent for insertion and deactivation of ICDs is challenging. Initiating early conversations with patients and continuing this dialogue over time, implementation of localized care protocols, increased collaboration (particularly between cardiac and palliative care teams), and the provision of training for all health professionals involved in the care of these patients, can help to ensure that adequate informed consent is maintained throughout their care. In addition to providing information, health professionals should identify and address high levels of anxiety in patients and their next of kin and promote effective communication throughout decision making. In the future, use of standardized checklists or decision aids based on a clear understanding of the principles underlying key topics could support this process.

Indexed as

CommunicationHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticePatient ParticipationAttitude of Health PersonnelBenchmarkingDefibrillators, ImplantableDevice RemovalElectric CountershockEquipment FailureEvidence-Based MedicineHumansInformed ConsentPatient Education as TopicPatient SelectionPhysician-Patient RelationsPractice Guidelines as Topic

Identifiers

PMID21788961
OpenAlexW2009327962

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.