SynthesisCritical care medicine2019
Interprofessional Shared Decision-Making in the ICU: A Systematic Review and Recommendations From an Expert Panel.
Synthesis 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 68 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
68 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Pooled it
- European Society of Intensive Care Medicine guidelines on end of life and palliative care in the intensive care unit.Intensive care medicine · 2024Guideline
- Interventions to Facilitate Shared Decision-Making Using Decision Aids with Coronary Heart Disease Patients: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Reviews in cardiovascular medicine · 2023Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Non-Pharmacological Interventions for Minimizing Physical Restraints Use in Intensive Care Units: An Umbrella Review.Frontiers in medicine · 2022Pooled it
- Trial
- Trial
- Coaching doctors to improve ethical decision-making in adult hospitalized patients potentially receiving excessive treatment. The CODE stepped-wedge cluster randomized controlled trial.Intensive care medicine · 2024Trial
- Surrogate resilience and clinical titration of presence in the open intensive care unit: a systematic narrative synthesis.International journal of nursing studies advances · 2026Review
- How nurses contribute to medical treatment decision-making with physicians: a scoping review.BMJ open · 2026Article
- Admission to intensive care: a matter of shared decision-making in the very old?European geriatric medicine · 2026Review
- Intensive care under uncertainty: a qualitative study of how older patients and their relatives wish to contribute to decision-making.European geriatric medicine · 2026Observational
- Article
- Interprofessional education and its impact on learners' attitudes over time: a cross-lagged panel analysis.BMC medical education · 2026Article
- Gene Therapy-Related Malignancy and the Risk of Cancer Exceptionalism.Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2026Article
- The second brain in the line of fire: addressing surrogate cognitive dysautoregulation.Intensive care medicine · 2026Article
- Contextualising ventilation decisions: an ethnographic study of factors shaping interprofessional decision-making.BMC nursing · 2026Article
- Shared Decision-Making With a Surrogate for Life-Sustaining Treatment of Critically Ill Patients: Protocol for a Scoping Review.JMIR research protocols · 2026Article
- Clinicians' Perspectives on Strengthening Interprofessional Teamwork to Support Surrogate Decision-Makers of Critically Ill Patients in ICUs.Critical care explorations · 2026Article
- Article
8 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesThere is growing recognition that high-quality care for patients and families in the ICU requires exemplary interprofessional collaboration and communication. One important aspect is how the ICU team makes complex decisions. However, no recommendations have been published on interprofessional shared decision-making. The aim of this project is to use systematic review and normative analysis by experts to examine existing evidence regarding interprofessional shared decision-making, describe its principles and provide ICU clinicians with recommendations regarding its implementation. DATA SOURCES: We conducted a systematic review using MEDLINE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and Cochrane databases and used normative analyses to formulate recommendations regarding interprofessional shared decision-making. STUDY SELECTION: Three authors screened titles and abstracts in duplicate. DATA SYNTHESIS: Four papers assessing the effect of interprofessional shared decision-making on quality of care were identified, suggesting that interprofessional shared decision-making is associated with improved processes and outcomes. Five recommendations, largely based on expert opinion, were developed: 1) interprofessional shared decision-making is a collaborative process among clinicians that allows for shared decisions regarding important treatment questions; 2) clinicians should consider engaging in interprofessional shared decision-making to promote the most appropriate and balanced decisions; 3) clinicians and hospitals should implement strategies to foster an ICU climate oriented toward interprofessional shared decision-making; 4) clinicians implementing interprofessional shared decision-making should consider incorporating a structured approach; and 5) further studies are needed to evaluate and improve the quality of interprofessional shared decision-making in ICUs.
conclusionsClinicians should consider an interprofessional shared decision-making model that allows for the exchange of information, deliberation, and joint attainment of important treatment decisions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31169620What 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.