Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30303839›Full record

ArticleCritical care medicine2019

Estimating ICU Benefit: A Randomized Study of Physicians.

Thomas S Valley, Andrew J Admon, Darin B Zahuranec, Allan Garland, Angela Fagerlin, Theodore J Iwashyna

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Critical care medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed
10.7field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 36 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Observational
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Thomas S Valley
Andrew J AdmonDivision of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.
Darin B ZahuranecInstitute for Healthcare Policy and Innovation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.
Allan GarlandDepartment of Internal Medicine, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, MB, Canada.
Angela FagerlinDepartment of Population Health Sciences, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, UT.
Theodore J IwashynaDivision of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.
University of Michigan–Ann Arbor · USUniversity of Manitoba · CAVA Salt Lake City Healthcare System · US

Funding

PULMONARY CELLULAR AND MOLECULAR BIOLOGY TRAININGT32HL007749 · NHLBI · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI Robert Pickett Dickson · 1993 to 2026
$19.9M
Preventing avoidable deaths from pneumonia by improving use of intensive careK23HL140165 · NHLBI · UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN AT ANN ARBOR · PI VALLEY, THOMAS SEBASTIAN · 2018 to 2022
$915k
NHLBI NIH HHS K23 HL140165NHLBI NIH HHS T32 HL007749
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe distinction between overuse and appropriate use of the ICU hinges on whether a patient would benefit from ICU care. We sought to test 1) whether physicians agree about which types of patients benefit from ICU care and 2) whether estimates of ICU benefit are influenced by factors unrelated to severity of illness.

designRandomized study.

settingOnline vignettes. SUBJECTS: U.S. critical care physicians.

interventionsPhysicians were provided with eight vignettes of hypothetical patients. Each vignette had a single patient or hospital factor randomized across participants (four factors related and four unrelated to severity of illness). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN

resultsThe primary outcome was the estimate of ICU benefit, assessed with a 4-point Likert-type scale. In total, 1,223 of 8,792 physicians volunteered to participate (14% recruitment rate). Physician agreement of ICU benefit was poor (mean intraclass correlation coefficient for each vignette: 0.06; range: 0-0.18). There were no vignettes in which more than two thirds of physicians agreed about the extent to which a patient would benefit from ICU care. Increasing severity of illness resulted in greater estimated benefit of ICU care. Among factors unrelated to severity of illness, physicians felt ICU care was more beneficial when told one ICU bed was available than if ICU bed availability was unmentioned. Physicians felt ICU care was less beneficial when family was present than when family presence was unmentioned. The patient's age, but not race/ethnicity, also impacted estimates of ICU benefit.

conclusionsEstimates of ICU benefit are widely dissimilar and influenced by factors unrelated to severity of illness, potentially resulting in inconsistent allocation of ICU care.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelClinical Decision-MakingIntensive Care UnitsPatient AdmissionPractice Patterns, Physicians'AdultAgedAged, 80 and overAge FactorsCritical CareFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedRandom AllocationSeverity of Illness Index

Identifiers

PMID30303839
PMCPMC6298833
OpenAlexW2898056872

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.