Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24831870›Full record

ArticleDer Unfallchirurg2014

[Cost-conscious medical decisions. Normative guidance within the conflicting demands of ethics and economics].

G Marckmann, J In der Schmitten

Abstract readEnglish Abstract
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Der Unfallchirurg, 2014. 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. Article
  2. Patient preferences: a Trojan horse for evidence-based medicine?The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2018
    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.

G MarckmannInstitut für Ethik, Geschichte und Theorie der Medizin, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, Lessingstraße 2, 80336, München, Deutschland, marckmann@lmu.de.
J In der Schmitten

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundUnder the current conditions in the health care system, physicians inevitably have to take responsibility for the cost dimension of their decisions on the level of single cases. This article, therefore, discusses the question how physicians can integrate cost considerations into their clinical decisions at the microlevel in a medically rational and ethically justified way. DISCUSSION: We propose a four-step model for "ethical cost-consciousness": (1) forego ineffective interventions as required by good evidence-based medicine, (2) respect individual patient preferences, (3) minimize the diagnostic and therapeutic effort to achieve a certain treatment goal, and (4) forego expensive interventions that have only a small or unlikely (net) benefit for the patient. Steps 1-3 are ethically justified by the principles of beneficence, nonmaleficence, and respect for autonomy, step 4 by the principles of justice. For decisions on step 4, explicit cost-conscious guidelines should be developed locally or regionally. Following the four-step model can contribute to ethically defensible, cost-conscious decision-making at the microlevel. In addition, physicians' rationing decisions should meet basic standards of procedural fairness. Regular cost-case discussions and clinical ethics consultation should be available as decision support. Implementing step 4, however, requires first of all a clear political legitimation with the corresponding legal framework.

Indexed as

Decision Support TechniquesCost AllocationDecision MakingGermanyHealth Care RationingHumansPhysician's RolePractice Patterns, Physicians'Resource Allocation

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.