ReviewNature reviews. Cardiology2013
Managing futility in critically ill patients with cardiac disease.
Review in Nature reviews. Cardiology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Intensive Care Management of the Cardiogenic Shock Patient.US cardiology · 2022Review
- Interventions and decision-making at the end of life: the effect of establishing the terminal illness situation.BMC palliative care · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Despite extraordinary innovations in cardiology and critical care, cardiovascular disease remains the leading cause of death globally, and heart failure has one of the highest disease burdens of any medical condition in the Western world. The lethality of many cardiac conditions, for which symptoms and prognoses are worse than for many malignancies, is widely under-recognized. A number of strategies have been developed within specialties such as oncology to improve the care of patients with life-threatening conditions. For reasons that are multifactorial, these options are often denied to critically ill patients with cardiac disease. Cardiologists and intensivists often regard death as failure, continuing to pursue active treatment while potentially denying patients access to alternatives such as symptom control and end-of-life care. Patient autonomy is central to the delivery of high-quality care, demanding shared decision-making to ensure patient preferences are acknowledged and respected. Although many cardiologists and intensivists do provide thoughtful and patient-centred care, the pressure to intervene can lead to physician-centric care focused around the needs and wishes of medical staff to the detriment of patients, families, health-care workers, and society as a whole.
Indexed as
Identifiers
24189404What 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.