Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31162200›Full record

ArticleCritical care medicine2019

A Multicenter Study of the Causes and Consequences of Optimistic Expectations About Prognosis by Surrogate Decision-Makers in ICUs.

Douglas B White, Shannon Carson, Wendy Anderson, Jay Steingrub, Garrett Bird, J Randall Curtis, Michael Matthay, Michael Peterson, Praewpannarai Buddadhumaruk, Anne-Marie Shields and 7 more

Open access · greenAbstract readMulticenter Study
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 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
5.1field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 41 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Optimism bias in understanding neonatal prognoses.Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association · 2021
    Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

17 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Douglas B WhiteDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA.
Shannon CarsonDivision of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, UNC-Chapel Hill School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, NC.
Wendy AndersonDivision of Palliative Medicine, UCSF School of Medicine, San Francisco, CA.
Jay SteingrubDivision of Pulmonary and Critical Care, Department of Medicine, Baystate Medical Center, University of Massachusetts School of Medicine, Springfield, MA.
Garrett BirdDepartment of Medicine, UCSF-Fresno School of Medicine, Fresno, CA.
J Randall CurtisUniversity of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA.
Michael MatthayDivision of Pulmonary and Critical Care, Department of Medicine, UCSF School of Medicine, San Francisco, CA.
Michael PetersonDivision of Pulmonary and Critical Care, Department of Medicine, UCSF-Fresno School of Medicine, Fresno, CA.
Praewpannarai BuddadhumarukDivision of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA.
Anne-Marie ShieldsDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA.
Natalie ErnecoffDivision of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA.
Kaitlin ShotsbergerSt. Clair Hospital, Pittsburgh, PA.
Lisa WeissfeldThe Statistics Collaborative, Washington, DC.
Chung-Chou H ChangDivision of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA.
Francis PikeEli Lilly, Indianapolis, IN.
Bernard LoDepartment of Medicine, UCSF School of Medicine, San Francisco, CA.
Catherine L HoughDivision of Pulmonary and Critical Care, Department of Medicine, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA.
University of Pittsburgh · USEli Lilly (United States) · USUniversity of California, San Francisco · USUniversity of Washington · US

Funding

Identifying Effective Strategies to Disclose Prognosis in Patients with ARDSR01HL094553 · NHLBI · UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH AT PITTSBURGH · PI WHITE, DOUGLAS B · 2009 to 2012
$2.8M
Mentored Patient Oriented Research in Improving Surrogate Decision Making for Patients with Advanced Respiratory FailureK24HL148314 · NHLBI · UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH AT PITTSBURGH · PI Douglas B White · 2019 to 2026
$944k
NHLBI NIH HHS K24 HL148314NHLBI NIH HHS R01 HL094553
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesOptimistic expectations about prognosis by surrogate decision-makers in ICUs are common, but there are few data about the causes and clinical consequences. Our objective was to determine the causes of optimistic expectations about prognosis among surrogates and whether it is associated with more use of life support at the end of life.

designProspective, multicenter cohort study from 2009 to 2012.

settingTwelve ICUs from multiple regions of the United States. SUBJECTS: The surrogates and physicians of 275 incapacitated ICU patients at high risk of death.

interventionsNone. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN

resultsSurrogates and physicians completed a validated instrument assessing their prognostic expectations for hospital survival. We determined the proportion of surrogates with optimistic expectations, defined as a prognostic estimate that was at least 20% more optimistic than the physician's, then determined how frequently this arose from surrogates miscomprehending the physicians' prognosis versus holding more hopeful beliefs compared with the physician. We used multivariable regression to examine whether optimistic expectations were associated with length of stay, stratified by survival status, and time to withdrawal of life support among nonsurvivors. Overall, 45% of surrogates (95% CI, 38-51%) held optimistic expectations about prognosis, which arose from a combination of misunderstanding the physician's prognostic expectations and from holding more hopeful beliefs compared with the physician. Optimistic expectations by surrogates were associated with significantly longer duration of ICU treatment among nonsurvivors before death (β coefficient = 0.44; 95% CI, 0.05-0.83; p = 0.027), corresponding to a 56% longer ICU stay. This difference was associated with a significantly longer time to withdrawal of life support among dying patients whose surrogates had optimistic prognostic expectations compared with those who did not (β coefficient = 0.61; 95% CI, 0.16-1.07; p = 0.009).

conclusionsThe prevalent optimism about prognosis among surrogates in ICUs arises both from surrogates' miscomprehension of physicians' prognostications and from surrogates holding more hopeful beliefs. This optimism is associated with longer duration of life support at the end of life.

Indexed as

CommunicationDecision MakingOptimismAdultAgedAPACHEFemaleHumansIntensive Care UnitsLength of StayMaleMiddle AgedPhysiciansProfessional-Family RelationsPrognosisProspective Studies

Identifiers

PMID31162200
PMCPMC6697218
OpenAlexW2948892679

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.