Observational studyEinstein (Sao Paulo, Brazil)2020
Physicians' behavior regarding non-acceptance of oral restriction (nil per os) by dysphagic patient with risk of laryngotracheal aspiration.
Observational study in Einstein (Sao Paulo, Brazil), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo define physician´s behavior in the face of a mentally capable elderly dysphagic patients at risk of pulmonary aspiration, who do not accept oral restriction.
methodsObservational, cross-sectional study, presenting a clinical case of an independent elderly with clinical complaints of dysphagia and laryngotracheal aspiration by flexible endoscopic evaluation of swallowing who rejected the proposal to restrict oral diet. A questionnaire about the patient's decision-making process was used to assess whether the physician was sympathetic and justify their answer, and if they are aware of hierarchy of ethical principles (recognition of the person´s value, autonomy, beneficence, nonmaleficence and justice), in the decision-making process, and which was the main principle that guided their decision.
resultsOne hundred participants were classified by time since graduation as Group I (less than 10 years) and Group II (more than 10 years). Of them, 60% agreed with the patient's decision, with no difference between the groups. The main reason was autonomy of patients, in both groups. Among those who were not sympathetic, the main argument was beneficence and nonmaleficence, considering the risk between benefit and harm. As to awareness about the hierarchy of principles, we did not find differences between the groups. Autonomy was the principle that guided those who were sympathetic with the patient's decision, and justice among those who didnot agree.
conclusionPhysicians were sympathetic with the patient's decision regarding autonomy, despite the balance between risks of beneficence and nonmaleficence, including death. We propose to formalize a non-compliance term.
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.