ArticleSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2013
Old age and poor prognosis increase the likelihood of disagreement between cancer patients and their oncologists on the indication for resuscitation attempt.
Article in Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Physicians' opinion of patients' CPR decision: Secondary analysis from a pilot RCT.Resuscitation plus · 2025Article
- Cancer patients, physicians, and nurses differ in their attitudes toward the decisional role in do-not-resuscitate decision-making.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2020Article
- Do-not-resuscitate orders in cancer patients: a review of literature.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2017Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe do-not-resuscitate decision is a common ethical problem. However, the concordance between patients' preferences and physicians' assessments of the indication for cardiopulmonary resuscitation attempt (CPR) has only been modestly investigated. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to determine the impact of different patient characteristics on the following outcomes: (1) patients' wishes for or against CPR, (2) assessments made by physicians of the indication for CPR, and (3) the probability of discordance between patients' wishes and physicians' assessments.
methodsIn this survey, 1,128 of 1,408 cancer patients received a questionnaire concerning their wish for CPR. In total, 904 patients responded. A total of 61 treating physicians assessed the medical indication for resuscitation. Different predefined patient characteristics were analyzed using both univariate and multivariate analyses.
resultsNinety percent of responding patients wished to receive CPR. The physicians found indications supporting CPR in 89 % of patients. Age ≥70 years, increasing line of treatment, poor prognosis, living alone, and poor self-rated physical and mental health enhanced both patients' wishes and physicians' assessments to withhold CPR. However, only age ≥70 years, poor prognosis, and poor self-rated physical health significantly predicted rejection of CPR in multivariate analyses. The likelihood of discordance between patients and physicians was significantly higher when the patient was ≥70 years and when the expected 5-year survival was <25 %.
conclusionsFactors associated with the imminence of dying influenced both patients and physicians to refrain from CPR, and perhaps more surprisingly, the probability of discordance between patients and physicians increased.
Indexed as
Identifiers
23925557What 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.