Trial reportBMJ open2016
Default options in advance directives: study protocol for a randomised clinical trial.
Trial report in BMJ open, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02017548 (Default Options in Advance Directives), which is not on this map. Cited by 6 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.
Default Options in Advance Directives
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effect of Default Options in Advance Directives on Hospital-Free Days and Care Choices Among Seriously Ill Patients: A Randomized Clinical Trial.JAMA network open · 2020Trial
- Preoperative Advance Care Planning for Older Adults Undergoing Major Abdominal Surgery.The American journal of hospice & palliative care · 2022Article
- Association of Advance Care Planning Visits With Intensity of Health Care for Medicare Beneficiaries With Serious Illness at the End of Life.JAMA health forum · 2021Article
- Advance Care Planning Claims and Health Care Utilization Among Seriously Ill Patients Near the End of Life.JAMA network open · 2019Article
- Hospital utilization and disposition among patients with malignant bowel obstruction: a population-based comparison of surgical to medical management.BMC cancer · 2018Article
- Are Demographic Characteristics Associated with Advance Directive Completion? A Secondary Analysis of Two Randomized Trials.Journal of general internal medicine · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
introductionAlthough most seriously ill Americans wish to avoid burdensome and aggressive care at the end of life, such care is often provided unless patients or family members specifically request otherwise. Advance directives (ADs) were created to provide opportunities to set limits on aggressive care near life's end. This study tests the hypothesis that redesigning ADs such that comfort-oriented care is provided as the default, rather than requiring patients to actively choose it, will promote better patient-centred outcomes. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This multicentre trial randomises seriously ill adults to receive 1 of 3 different ADs: (1) a traditional AD that requires patients to actively choose their goals of care or preferences for specific interventions (eg, feeding tube insertion) or otherwise have their care guided by their surrogates and the prevailing societal default toward aggressive care; (2) an AD that defaults to life-extending care and receipt of life-sustaining interventions, enabling patients to opt out from such care; or (3) an AD that defaults to comfort care, enabling patients to opt into life-extending care. We seek to enrol 270 patients who return complete, legally valid ADs so as to generate sufficient power to detect differences in the primary outcome of hospital-free days (days alive and not in an acute care facility). Secondary outcomes include hospital and intensive care unit admissions, costs of care, hospice usage, decision conflict and satisfaction, quality of life, concordance of preferences with care received and bereavement outcomes for surrogates of patients who die. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has been approved by the Institutional Review Boards at all trial centres, and is guided by a data safety and monitoring board and an ethics advisory board. Study results will be disseminated using methods that describe the results in ways that key stakeholders can best understand and implement. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02017548; Pre-results.
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.