ArticleAmerican journal of respiratory and critical care medicine2017
Accounting for Patient Preferences Regarding Life-Sustaining Treatment in Evaluations of Medical Effectiveness and Quality.
Article in American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
17 citing papers in PubMed.
- Communication Surrounding Treatment Preferences for Older Adults With Dementia During Emergency Medical Services Response.Journal of the American Geriatrics Society · 2026Article
- Racial, Ethnic, and Socioeconomic Differences in Critical Care Near the End of Life: A Narrative Review.Critical care clinics · 2024Review
- Natural Language Processing to Identify Home Health Care Patients at Risk for Becoming Incapacitated With No Evident Advance Directives or Surrogates.Journal of the American Medical Directors Association · 2024Article
- Potential Conflicts of Interest Arising from Dualism of Loyalty Imposed on Employees of Medical Institutions-Findings and Tools for Ethics Management.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2023Article
- Contribution of information about acute and geriatric characteristics to decisions about life-sustaining treatment for old patients in intensive care.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2023Article
- The Future of Cardiothoracic Surgical Critical Care Medicine as a Medical Science: A Call to Action.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2022Review
- Advance Care Planning and Treatment Intensity Before Death Among Black, Hispanic, and White Patients Hospitalized with COVID-19.Journal of general internal medicine · 2022Article
- Overlooked Shortcomings of Observational Studies of Interventions in Coronavirus Disease 2019: An Illustrated Review for the Clinician.Open forum infectious diseases · 2021Review
- Perceived efficacy of hydroxychloroquine in observational studies: Results of the confounding effect of "goals of care".International journal of antimicrobial agents · 2021Article
- Association of Do-Not-Resuscitate Patient Case Mix With Publicly Reported Risk-Standardized Hospital Mortality and Readmission Rates.JAMA network open · 2020Article
- Health Insurance and Disparities in Mortality among Older Survivors of Critical Illness: A Population Study.Journal of the American Geriatrics Society · 2019Article
- An administrative model for benchmarking hospitals on their 30-day sepsis mortality.BMC health services research · 2019Article
- More than one in three proxies do not know their loved one's current code status: An observational study in a Maryland ICU.PloS one · 2019Observational
- Competing and conflicting interests in the care of critically ill patients.Intensive care medicine · 2018Review
- Validation of the V49.86 Code for Do-Not-Resuscitate Status in Hospitalized Patients at a Single Academic Medical Center.Annals of the American Thoracic Society · 2018Article
- Variation in mortality rates after admission to long-term acute care hospitals for ventilator weaning.Journal of critical care · 2018Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The importance of understanding patient preferences for life-sustaining treatment is well described for individual clinical decisions; however, its role in evaluations of healthcare outcomes and quality has received little attention. Decisions to limit life-sustaining therapies are strongly associated with high risks for death in ways that are unaccounted for by routine measures of illness severity. However, this essential information is generally unavailable to researchers, with the potential for spurious inferences. This may lead to "confounding by unmeasured patient preferences" (a type of confounding by indication) and has implications for assessments of treatment effectiveness and healthcare quality, especially in acute and critical care settings in which risk for death and adverse events are high. Through a collection of case studies, we explore the effect of unmeasured patient resuscitation preferences on issues critical for researchers and research consumers to understand. We then propose strategies to more consistently elicit, record, and harmonize documentation of patient preferences that can be used to attenuate confounding by unmeasured patient preferences and provide novel opportunities to improve the patient centeredness of medical care for serious illness.
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.