Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30309384›Full record

ArticleCritical care (London, England)2018

New perspectives on substituted relational autonomy for shared decision-making in critical care.

Nicola Grignoli, Valentina Di Bernardo, Roberto Malacrida

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Critical care (London, England), 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
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

3 authors.

Nicola GrignoliSasso Corbaro Medical Humanities Foundation, Via Lugano 4b, CH-6500, Bellinzona, Switzerland. nicola.grignoli@eoc.ch.ORCID 0000-0001-6028-2159
Valentina Di BernardoSasso Corbaro Medical Humanities Foundation, Via Lugano 4b, CH-6500, Bellinzona, Switzerland.
Roberto MalacridaSasso Corbaro Medical Humanities Foundation, Via Lugano 4b, CH-6500, Bellinzona, Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In critical care when unconscious patients are assisted by machines, humanity is mainly ensured by respect for autonomy, realised through advance directives or, mostly, reconstructed by cooperation with relatives. Whereas patient-centred approaches are widely discussed and fostered, managing communication in complex, especially end-of-life, situations in open intensive care units is still a point of debate and a possible source of conflict and moral distress. In particular, healthcare teams are often sceptical about the growing role of families in shared decision-making and their ability to represent patients' preferences. New perspectives on substituted relational autonomy are needed for overcoming this climate of suspicion and are discussed through recent literature in the field of medical ethics.

Indexed as

Decision MakingPersonal AutonomyChoice BehaviorCritical CareFamilyHumansIntensive Care UnitsPatient-Centered CarePhysician-Patient RelationsCritical careMedical ethicsPsychologyRelativesShared decision-making

Identifiers

PMID30309384
PMCPMC6182794

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.