Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28050241›Full record

ReviewJournal of medical ethics and history of medicine2016

Medical futility and its challenges: a review study.

Maryam Aghabarary, Nahid Dehghan Nayeri

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of medical ethics and history of medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
37citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. [When the one who heals dies. The physician at the end of life].Revista medica del Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social · 2026
    Review
  3. Artificial intelligence and medical futility.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2026
    Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Observational
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Observational
  19. Did the Palliative Care Outcomes Collaboration (PCOC) program lead to improved end-of-life care quality and reduced non-beneficial treatments?Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2024
    Article
  20. Review
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.

Maryam AghabararyPhD Student in Nursing, Nursing and Midwifery Care Research Center, Faculty of Nursing and Midwifery, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Nahid Dehghan NayeriProfessor, Nursing and Midwifery Care Research Center, Faculty of Nursing and Midwifery, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Concerns over limited medical equipment and resources, particularly in intensive care units (ICUs), have raised the issue of medical futility. Medical futility draws a contrast between physician's authority and patients' autonomy and it is one of the major issues of end-of-life ethical decision-making. The aim of this study was to review medical futility and its challenges. In this systematized review study, a comprehensive search of the existing literature was performed using an internet search with broad keywords to access related articles in both Persian and English databases. Finally, 89 articles were selected and surveyed. Medical futility is a complex, ambiguous, subjective, situation-specific, value-laden, and goal-dependent concept which is almost always surrounded by some degrees of uncertainty; hence, there is no objective and valid criterion for its determination. This concept is affected by many different factors such as physicians' and patients' value systems, medical goals, and sociocultural and religious context, and individuals' emotions and personal characteristics. It is difficult to achieve a clear consensus over the concept of medical futility; hence, it should be defined and determined at an individual level and based on the unique condition of each patient.

Indexed as

Decision-makingMedical futilityPhysiologic futilityQualitative futilityWithholding of treatments

Identifiers

PMID28050241
PMCPMC5203684

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.