ArticlePloS one2019
What's behind the white coat: Potential mechanisms of physician-attributable variation in critical care.
Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Role of Attending Practice Variability in Prone Positioning Initiation: A Retrospective Cohort Study.CHEST critical care · 2025Article
- Association between physician age and patterns of end-of-life care among older Americans.Journal of the American Geriatrics Society · 2024Article
- A model for occupational stress amongst paediatric and adult critical care staff during COVID-19 pandemic.International archives of occupational and environmental health · 2021Observational
- 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCritical care intensity is known to vary across regions and centers, yet the mechanisms remain unidentified. Physician behaviors have been implicated in the variability of intensive care near the end of life, but physician characteristics that may underlie this association have not been determined. PURPOSE: We sought to identify behavioral attributes that vary among intensivists to generate hypotheses for mechanisms of intensivist-attributable variation in critical care delivery.
methodsWe administered a questionnaire to intensivists who participated in a prior cohort study in which intensivists made prognostic estimates. We evaluated the degree to which scores on six attribute measures varied across intensivists. Measures were selected for their relevance to preference-sensitive critical care: a modified End-of-Life Preferences (EOLP) scale, Life Orientation Test-Revised (LOT-R), Jefferson Scale of Empathy (JSE), Physicians' Reactions to Uncertainty (PRU) scale, Collett-Lester Fear of Death (CLFOD) scale, and a test of omission bias. We conducted regression analyses assessing relationships between intensivists' attribute scores and their prognostic accuracy, as physicians' prognostic accuracy may influence preference-sensitive decisions.
results20 of 25 eligible intensivists (80%) completed the questionnaire. Intensivists' scores on the EOLP, LOT-R, PRU, CLFOD, and omission bias measures varied considerably, while their responses on the JSE scale did not. There were no consistent associations between attribute scores and prognostic accuracy.
conclusionsIntensivists vary in feasibly measurable attributes relevant to preference-sensitive critical care delivery. These attributes represent candidates for future research aimed at identifying mechanisms of clinician-attributable variation in critical care and developing effective interventions to reduce undue variation.
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.