Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27004224›Full record

ReviewAnnals of translational medicine2016

Rethinking autonomy: decision making between patient and surgeon in advanced illnesses.

Lauren M Wancata, Daniel B Hinshaw

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Annals of translational medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 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.

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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Guideline
  2. Article
  3. "It's Either Have Surgery or Die": How Patients Perceive the Choice to Undergo High-Risk Abdominal Surgery for Cancer.Annals of surgery open : perspectives of surgical history, education, and clinical approaches · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Ethics Consultation in Surgical Specialties.HEC forum : an interdisciplinary journal on hospitals' ethical and legal issues · 2022
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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.

Lauren M Wancata1 Department of Surgery, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA ; 2 Department of Internal Medicine, Hospice and Palliative Medicine, University of Michigan Geriatrics Center, Ann Arbor, MI, USA ; 3 Palliative Care Program, VA Ann Arbor Health Care System, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.
Daniel B Hinshaw1 Department of Surgery, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA ; 2 Department of Internal Medicine, Hospice and Palliative Medicine, University of Michigan Geriatrics Center, Ann Arbor, MI, USA ; 3 Palliative Care Program, VA Ann Arbor Health Care System, Ann Arbor, MI, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Patients with advanced illness such as advanced stage cancer presenting with the need for possible surgical intervention can be some of the most challenging cases for a surgeon. Often there are multiple factors influencing the decisions made. For patients they are facing not just the effects of the disease on their body, but the stark realization that the disease will also limit their life. Not only are these factors a consideration when patients are making decisions, but also the desire to make the decision that is best for themselves, the autonomous decision. Also included in this process for the patient facing the possible need for an intervention is the surgeon. While patient autonomy remains one of the main principles within medicine, guiding treatment decisions, there is also the surgeon's autonomy to be considered. Surgeons determine if there is even a possible intervention to be offered to patients, a decision making process that respects surgeons' autonomous choices and includes elements of paternalism as surgeons utilize their expertise to make decisions. Included in the treatment decisions that are made and the care of the patient is the impact patients' outcomes have on the surgeon, the inherent drive to be the best for the patient and desire for good outcomes for the patient. While both the patient's and surgeon's autonomy are a dynamic interface influencing decision making, the main goal for the patient facing a palliative procedure is that of making treatment decisions based on the concept of shared decision making, always giving primary consideration to the patient's goals and values. Lastly, regardless of the decision made, it is the responsibility of surgeons to their patients to be a source of support through this challenging time.

Indexed as

Advanced illnessautonomypalliative careshared decision makingsurgery

Identifiers

PMID27004224
PMCPMC4779776

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.