Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26568176›Full record

ArticleDeutsches Arzteblatt international2015

The Validity of Advance Directives in Acute Situations.

Nadja Leder, Daniel Schwarzkopf, Konrad Reinhart, Otto W Witte, Rüüdiger Pfeifer, Christiane S Hartog

Registry-linked trialAbstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Deutsches Arzteblatt international, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05575791 (Evaluation of Preoperative Acceptance of Proactive Palliative Care Intervention), which is not on this map. Cited by 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing 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.

NCT05575791 unknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2022, after this paper: background citation

Evaluation of Preoperative Acceptance of Proactive Palliative Care Intervention

Typeobservational_patient_registrySponsorCharite University, Berlin, GermanyRan2022 to 2023Enrolled100ConditionsCancer, Heart Failure, Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, Postoperative Complications
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. End-of-life practices in 11 German intensive care units : Results from the ETHICUS-2 study.Medizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin · 2023
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. [Advance care planning in critical care : Potential and requirements].Medizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin · 2021
    Review
  10. End-of-Life Care Decision-Making in Stroke.Frontiers in neurology · 2021
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Hospitalization and Intensive Therapy at the End of Life.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2019
    Observational
  14. Article
  15. [Nonbeneficial care-a burden for clinicians and relatives].Medizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin · 2019
    Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. 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

6 authors.

Nadja LederDepartment of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, Jena University Hospital, Center for Sepsis Control and Care (CSCC), Jena University Hospital, Department of Neurology, Jena University Hospital, Department of Internal Medicine I, Jena University Hospital.
Daniel Schwarzkopf
Konrad Reinhart
Otto W Witte
Rüüdiger Pfeifer
Christiane S Hartog

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundNearly every fourth person in Germany has an advance directive that is to be used in certain medical situations. It is questionable, however, whether advance directives truly influence important treatment decisions in the intensive care unit. We studied the extent to which doctors and patients' relatives agree on the applicability of advance directives in the acute setting.

methodsA prospective study was carried out by questionnaire among the physicians and relatives of 50 patients with advance directives who were hospitalized on four different multidisciplinary intensive care units. The answers of 25 residents in training, 14 senior physicians, and 19 relatives were analyzed both quantitatively and qualitatively. The extent of agreement was assessed by means of Gwet's AC1 with linear weighting.

resultsIn most of the advance directives, the conditions under which they were meant to apply were stated in broad, general terms in prewritten blocks of text. 23 of the 50 patients (46%) died. All relatives stated that they were very familiar with the patients' wishes; 18 of 19 were legally responsible for decision-making. In assessing whether the advance directive was applicable to the situation at hand, the strength of agreement between physicians and relatives as well as between the two groups of physicians was only fair and non-significant (0.35; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.01 to 0.71; p = 0.059 and 0.24; 95% CI: -0.03 to 0.50; p = 0.079). The relatives found the advance directives more useful than the doctors did (median, 5 vs. 3 [p = 0.018] on a Likert scale ranging from 0 [not useful at all] to 5 [very useful]) and favored their literal application (median, 5 vs. 4 [p = 0.018] on a Likert scale ranging from 0 [favoring the doctor's interpretation] to 5 [favoring literal application]). 30 days after the decision, 13 relatives (68%) felt that the patient's wishes had been fully complied with.

conclusionThese groups' clearly differing assessments of the applicability of advance directives imply that the currently most common types of advance directive are not suitable for use in intensive care. In order to support patients' relatives in their role as surrogate participants in decision-making, improved advance directives should be developed, and their implementation should be incorporated into the training and continuing medical education of intensive-care physicians.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelFamilyAdvance DirectivesAgedAged, 80 and overClinical Decision-MakingCritical CareCritical IllnessGermanyHumansIntensive Care UnitsMiddle AgedPhysiciansSurveys and QuestionnairesSurvival RateUtilization Review

Identifiers

PMID26568176
PMCPMC4647312

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.