ReviewCurrent opinion in critical care2014
Default options in the ICU: widely used but insufficiently understood.
Review in Current opinion in critical care, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Randomized Controlled Trial of a Decision Support Intervention About Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation for Hospitalized Patients Who Have a High Risk of Death.Journal of general internal medicine · 2021Trial
- Default options in advance directives: study protocol for a randomised clinical trial.BMJ open · 2016Trial
- Hope, but never expect? Comparing parents' pre- and post-disclosure attitudes toward return of results from diagnostic exome sequencing for their child.Molecular genetics & genomic medicine · 2024Article
- How clinicians discuss patients' donor registrations of consent and presumed consent in donor conversations in an opt-out system: a qualitative embedded multiple-case study.Critical care (London, England) · 2023Article
- Intensive Care Unit Clinicians' Perspectives on Achieving Proactive Interprofessional Family Meetings.American journal of critical care : an official publication, American Association of Critical-Care Nurses · 2022Article
- How to discuss about do-not-resuscitate in the intensive care unit?Revista Brasileira de terapia intensiva · 2019Review
- Evaluation of RBC Transfusion Practice in Adult ICUs and the Effect of Restrictive Transfusion Protocols on Routine Care.Critical care medicine · 2017Observational
- Observational
- The Impact of Choice Architecture on Sepsis Fluid Resuscitation Decisions: An Exploratory Survey-Based Study.MDM policy & practiceArticle
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
Abstract
purpose of reviewDefault options dramatically influence the behavior of decision makers and may serve as effective decision support tools in the ICU. Their use in medicine has increased in an effort to improve efficiency, reduce errors, and harness the potential of healthcare technology. RECENT
findingsDefaults often fall short of their predicted influence when employed in critical care settings as quality improvement interventions. Investigations reporting the use of defaults are often limited by variations in the relative effect across sites. Preimplementation experiments and long-term monitoring studies are lacking. SUMMARY: Defaults in the ICU may help or harm patients and clinical efficiency depending on their format and use. When constructing and encountering defaults, providers should be aware of their powerful and complex influences on decision making. Additional evaluations of the appropriate creation of healthcare defaults and their resulting intended and unintended consequences are needed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.