ArticleJournal of religion and health2013
Religion and United States physicians' opinions and self-predicted practices concerning artificial nutrition and hydration.
Article in Journal of religion and health, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Muslims and End-of-Life Healthcare in Non-Muslim Majority Nations: A Systematic Literature Review.Journal of pain and symptom management · 2024Pooled it
- A systematic review of religious beliefs about major end-of-life issues in the five major world religions.Palliative & supportive care · 2017Pooled it
- The use of palliative care by people of Islamic faith and their preferences and decisions at the end of life: A scoping review.Palliative & supportive care · 2025Article
- The NERSH Questionnaire and Pool of Data from 12 Countries: Development and Description.Journal of religion and health · 2022Article
- US Physicians' Opinions about Distinctions between Withdrawing and Withholding Life-Sustaining Treatment.Journal of religion and health · 2016Article
- Predictors of Physician Recommendation for Ethically Controversial Medical Procedures: Findings from an Exploratory National Survey of American Muslim Physicians.Journal of religion and health · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study surveyed 1,156 practicing US physicians to examine the relationship between physicians' religious characteristics and their approaches to artificial nutrition and hydration (ANH). Forty percent of physicians believed that unless a patient is imminently dying, the patient should always receive nutrition and fluids; 75 % believed that it is ethically permissible for doctors to withdraw ANH. The least religious physicians were less likely to oppose withholding or withdrawing ANH. Compared to non-evangelical Protestant physicians, Jews and Muslims were significantly more likely to oppose withholding ANH, and Muslims were significantly more likely to oppose withdrawing ANH.
Indexed as
Identifiers
23754580What 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.