Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24189404›Full record

ReviewNature reviews. Cardiology2013

Managing futility in critically ill patients with cardiac disease.

Susanna Price, Elizabeth Haxby

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. 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

2 authors.

Susanna PriceRoyal Brompton Hospital, Sydney Street, London SW3 6NP, UK.
Elizabeth Haxby

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Medical FutilityPatient-Centered CareAttitude of Health PersonnelChoice BehaviorCritical IllnessDecision Support TechniquesHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHeart DiseasesHumansPalliative CarePatient PreferencePhysician-Patient RelationsPhysician's RoleProfessional-Family RelationsTerminal CareWithholding Treatment

Identifiers

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.