Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31169620›Full record

SynthesisCritical care medicine2019

Interprofessional Shared Decision-Making in the ICU: A Systematic Review and Recommendations From an Expert Panel.

Andrej Michalsen, Ann C Long, Freda DeKeyser Ganz, Douglas B White, Hanne I Jensen, Victoria Metaxa, Christiane S Hartog, Jos M Latour, Robert D Truog, Jozef Kesecioglu and 2 more

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
68citing papers in PubMed, 5 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

68 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Guideline
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Observational
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Gene Therapy-Related Malignancy and the Risk of Cancer Exceptionalism.Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2026
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

8 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

Andrej MichalsenDepartment of Anaesthesiology and Critical Care, Medizin Campus Bodensee - Tettnang Hospital, Tettnang, Germany.
Ann C LongHarborview Medical Center, Division of Pulmonary, Critical Care and Sleep Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA.
Freda DeKeyser GanzHadassah Hebrew University School of Nursing, Jerusalem, Israel.
Douglas B WhiteDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA.
Hanne I JensenDepartments of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care, Lillebaelt Hospital, Vejle, Denmark.
Victoria MetaxaDepartment of Critical Care, King's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom.
Christiane S HartogPatient- and Family-Centered Care, Klinik Bavaria Kreischa, Kreischa, Germany.
Jos M LatourSchool of Nursing and Midwifery, Faculty of Health and Human Sciences, University of Plymouth, Plymouth, United Kingdom.
Robert D TruogCenter for Bioethics, Harvard, Medical School, as well as Department of Anesthesiology, Critical Care, and Pain Medicine, Boston Children's Hospital, Boston, MA.
Jozef KeseciogluDepartment of Intensive Care Medicine, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Anna R MahnDepartment of Anesthesiology and Operative Intensive Care Medicine, Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
J Randall CurtisHarborview Medical Center, Division of Pulmonary, Critical Care and Sleep Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle, WA.

Funding

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 HL148314
6 · The paper itself

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

Interprofessional RelationsClinical Decision-MakingCommunicationCooperative BehaviorGroup ProcessesHumansIntensive Care UnitsPatient Care Team

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.