Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26509317›Full record

GuidelineCritical care medicine2016

Shared Decision Making in ICUs: An American College of Critical Care Medicine and American Thoracic Society Policy Statement.

Alexander A Kon, Judy E Davidson, Wynne Morrison, Marion Danis, Douglas B White, American College of Critical Care Medicine, American Thoracic Society

2 registry-linked trialsAbstract readPractice Guideline
In one paragraph

Guideline in Critical care medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 208 papers, 9 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
208citing papers in PubMed, 9 pooled it
–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.

NCT04034979 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2017, after this paper: background citation

Evaluation of a Context-adapted Decision Aid Supporting Critically Ill Patients' Decisions About Life-sustaining Therapies - a Pilot Project

TypeinterventionalSponsorLaval UniversityRan2017 to 2018Enrolled26ConditionsDecision Making, Resuscitation, Intensive Care Unit, Goals-of-careArmsdecision aid
NCT04078815 completednot on this mapstarted 2019, after this paper: background citation

Evolution of European Ethical Resuscitation and End-of-Life Practices From 2014 to 2019: A Survey-based Comparative Evaluation

TypeobservationalSponsorUniversity of AthensRan2019 to 2020Enrolled84ConditionsTerminal Illness, Heart Arrest, Ethics, Narrative
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

208 citing papers in PubMed, 9 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. [S3 guideline on sepsis-prevention, diagnosis, therapy, and follow-up care-update 2025].Medizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin · 2025
    Guideline
  2. Guideline
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. [S3 Guideline Sepsis-prevention, diagnosis, therapy, and aftercare : Long version].Medizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin · 2020
    Guideline
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Guideline
  9. Guideline
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Early Clinical Mediation in End-of-Life Disputes: A Procedural Justice Analysis.Health care analysis : HCA : journal of health philosophy and policy · 2026
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Informed nondissent: an underutilized tool for the NICU context.Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association · 2026
    Review

148 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

7 authors.

Alexander A Kon1Pediatric Critical Care Medicine, Naval Medical Center San Diego, San Diego, CA.2Department of Pediatrics, University of California San Diego School of Medicine, San Diego, CA.3University of California Health System, San Diego, CA.4Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA.5Department of Bioethics, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD.6Program on Ethics and Decision Making in Critical Illness and Department of Critical Care Medicine, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA.
Judy E Davidson
Wynne Morrison
Marion Danis
Douglas B White
American College of Critical Care Medicine
American Thoracic Society

Funding

Intramural NIH HHS Z99 CL999999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesShared decision making is endorsed by critical care organizations; however, there remains confusion about what shared decision making is, when it should be used, and approaches to promote partnerships in treatment decisions. The purpose of this statement is to define shared decision making, recommend when shared decision making should be used, identify the range of ethically acceptable decision-making models, and present important communication skills.

designThe American College of Critical Care Medicine and American Thoracic Society Ethics Committees reviewed empirical research and normative analyses published in peer-reviewed journals to generate recommendations. Recommendations approved by consensus of the full Ethics Committees of American College of Critical Care Medicine and American Thoracic Society were included in the statement. MAIN

resultsSix recommendations were endorsed: 1) DEFINITION: Shared decision making is a collaborative process that allows patients, or their surrogates, and clinicians to make healthcare decisions together, taking into account the best scientific evidence available, as well as the patient's values, goals, and preferences. 2) Clinicians should engage in a shared decision making process to define overall goals of care (including decisions regarding limiting or withdrawing life-prolonging interventions) and when making major treatment decisions that may be affected by personal values, goals, and preferences. 3) Clinicians should use as their "default" approach a shared decision making process that includes three main elements: information exchange, deliberation, and making a treatment decision. 4) A wide range of decision-making approaches are ethically supportable, including patient- or surrogate-directed and clinician-directed models. Clinicians should tailor the decision-making process based on the preferences of the patient or surrogate. 5) Clinicians should be trained in communication skills. 6) Research is needed to evaluate decision-making strategies.

conclusionsPatient and surrogate preferences for decision-making roles regarding value-laden choices range from preferring to exercise significant authority to ceding such authority to providers. Clinicians should adapt the decision-making model to the needs and preferences of the patient or surrogate.

Indexed as

Clinical Decision-MakingIntensive Care UnitsCritical CareDecision MakingHumansUnited States

Identifiers

PMID26509317
PMCPMC4788386

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

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.