ArticleCancer research and treatment2020
Implication of the Life-Sustaining Treatment Decisions Act on End-of-Life Care for Korean Terminal Patients.
Article in Cancer research and treatment, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 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
33 citing papers in PubMed.
- Shifting Public Discourse on Life-Sustaining Treatment in South Korea From 2014 to 2025: Longitudinal Social Media Analysis.JMIR infodemiology · 2026Article
- When advance directives clash with family consent: designing an operational framework for end-of-life decision-making in China and Korea.BMC medical ethics · 2026Article
- Healthcare utilization and end-of-life care based on life-sustaining treatment decisions in patients with cancer.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026Article
- Experiences of End-of-Life Care Among Medical Staff in Acute Care Hospitals: A Qualitative Study.Journal of hospice and palliative care · 2026Article
- The impact of withholding and withdrawal life-sustaining treatment issues on patients with sepsis: a prospective, nationwide, multicenter cohort study.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- The Impact of Advanced Care Planning on Hospice Utilization in Patients with Cancer: A Nationwide Analysis in Korea.Cancers · 2025Article
- Factors Affecting Life-Sustaining Treatment Decisions and Changes in Clinical Practice after Enforcement of the Life-Sustaining Treatment (LST) Decision Act: A Tertiary Hospital Experience in Korea.Cancer research and treatment · 2025Article
- Changes in Pediatric End-of-Life Process After the Enforcement of the Act on Life-Sustaining Treatment Decisions-The Experience of a Single Children's Hospital.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Issues and implications of the life-sustaining treatment decision act: comparing the data from the survey and clinical data of inpatients at the end-of-life process.BMC medical ethics · 2024Observational
- Inpatient Hospice Care in Korea during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Preliminary Study.Journal of hospice and palliative care · 2024Article
- End-of-life care in the intensive care unit: the optimal process of decision to withdrawing life-sustaining treatment based on the Korean medical environment and culture.Acute and critical care · 2024Article
- Comparison of factors influencing the decision to withdraw life-sustaining treatment in intensive care unit patients after implementation of the Life-Sustaining Treatment Act in Korea.Acute and critical care · 2024Article
- Characteristics and outcomes of patients with do-not-resuscitate and physician orders for life-sustaining treatment in a medical intensive care unit: a retrospective cohort study.BMC palliative care · 2024Article
- Recent Trends in the Withdrawal of Life-Sustaining Treatment in Patients with Acute Cerebrovascular Disease : 2017-2021.Journal of Korean Neurosurgical Society · 2024Article
- Predicting in-hospital cardiac arrest outcomes: CASPRI and GO-FAR scores.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Patient and hospital characteristics associated with do-not-resuscitate/do-not-intubate orders: a cross-sectional study based on the Taiwan stroke registry.BMC palliative care · 2023Article
- Preferred versus Actual Place of Care and Factors Associated with Home Discharge among Korean Patients with Advanced Cancer: A Retrospective Cohort Study.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Use of high-flow nasal cannula oxygen therapy for patients with terminal cancer at the end of life.Cancer medicine · 2023Article
- Participation and Influencing Factors in the Decision-Making of Life-Sustaining Treatment: A Focus on Deceased Patients with Hematologic Neoplasms.Journal of hospice and palliative care · 2023Article
- Modification of termination of resuscitation rule with compression time interval in South Korea.Scientific reports · 2023Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeLife-sustaining treatment (LST) decisions for patients and caregivers at the end-of-life (EOL) process are supported by the "Act on Hospice and Palliative Care and Decisions on LST for Patients at the EOL," enforced in February 2018. It remains unclear whether the act changes EOL decisions and LST implementation in clinical practice. For this study, we investigated patients' decision-making regarding LSTs during the EOL process since the act's enforcement. Materials and Methods: Retrospective reviews were conducted on adult patients who were able to decide to terminate LST and died at Seoul National University Hospital between February 5, 2018, and February 5, 2019. We examined demographics, who made the decisions, the type and date of documentation confirming patient's LST, and whether the LST was withheld or withdrawn.
resultsOf 809 patients who were enrolled, 29% (n=231) completed forms regarding LST themselves, and 71% (n=578) needed family members to decide. The median time from confirmation of the EOL process to death and from the Advance Statement to death were 2 and 5 days, respectively (both ranges, 0 to 244). In total, 90% (n=727) of patients withheld treatment, and 10% (n=82)withdrew it. We found a higher withdrawal rate when family members made the decisions (13.3% vs. 1.7%, p < 0.001).
conclusionAfter the act's enforcement, withdrawing LSTs became lawful and self-determination rates increased. Family members still make 71% of decisions regarding LSTs, but these are often inconsistent with the patients' wishes; thus, further efforts are needed to integrate the new act into clinical practice.
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.