Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29502720›Full record

ReviewNeurosurgery clinics of North America2018

Shared Decision Making in Neurocritical Care.

Muhammad Waqas Khan, Susanne Muehlschlegel

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Neurosurgery clinics of North America, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing 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.

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

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. End-of-Life Care Decision-Making in Stroke.Frontiers in neurology · 2021
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Impact of industry 4.0 to create advancements in orthopaedics.Journal of clinical orthopaedics and trauma · 2020
    Article
  12. Review
  13. Neuropalliative care: new perspectives of intensive care.Revista Brasileira de terapia intensiva
    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.

Muhammad Waqas KhanDepartment of Neurology, University of Massachusetts Medical School, 55 Lake Avenue North, S-5, Worcester, MA 01655, USA.
Susanne MuehlschlegelDepartment of Neurology, University of Massachusetts Medical School, 55 Lake Avenue North, S-5, Worcester, MA 01655, USA; Department of Surgery, University of Massachusetts Medical School, 55 Lake Avenue North, Worcester, MA 01655, USA; Department of Anesthesiology/Critical Care, University of Massachusetts Medical School, 55 Lake Avenue North, Worcester, MA 01655, USA. Electronic address: Susanne.Muehlschlegel@umassmemorial.org.

Funding

Improving Clinical Decisions for Critically Ill Traumatic Brain Injury PatientsK23HD080971 · NICHD · UNIV OF MASSACHUSETTS MED SCH WORCESTER · PI MUEHLSCHLEGEL, SUSANNE · 2015 to 2019
$751k
NICHD NIH HHS K23 HD080971
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Shared decision making is a collaborative decision-making process between health care providers and patients or their surrogates, taking into account the best scientific evidence available while considering the patient's values, goals, and preferences. Decision aids are tools enabling SDM. This article discusses shared decision making in general and in the intensive care unit in particular and facilitators and barriers for the creation and implementation of International Patient Decision Aids Standards Collaboration-compliant decision aids for the intensive care unit and neuro-intensive care unit.

Indexed as

Decision MakingIntensive Care UnitsResearchCommunicationHumansPatient SelectionDecision aidIntensive care unitNeurocritical carePatient-centered careShared decision making

Identifiers

PMID29502720
PMCPMC5873586

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.