Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32402532›Full record

GuidelineMedicina intensiva2020

[Ethical recommendations for a difficult decision-making in intensive care units due to the exceptional situation of crisis by the COVID-19 pandemia: A rapid review & consensus of experts].

O Rubio, A Estella, L Cabre, I Saralegui-Reta, M C Martin, L Zapata, M Esquerda, R Ferrer, A Castellanos, J Trenado and 1 more

Abstract readConsensus StatementPractice GuidelineReview
In one paragraph

Guideline in Medicina intensiva, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 63 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
63citing papers in PubMed, 4 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

63 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Guideline
  4. Guideline
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Lessons from COVID-19 for future disasters: an opinion paper.Revista espanola de quimioterapia : publicacion oficial de la Sociedad Espanola de Quimioterapia · 2022
    Review
  19. Impact of one year of pandemic on Spanish Intensive Care Units.Revista espanola de quimioterapia : publicacion oficial de la Sociedad Espanola de Quimioterapia · 2022
    Article
  20. Article

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

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

O RubioCuidados Intensivos, Althaia, Xarxa Assistencial Universitària de Manresa, Manresa, Barcelona, España. Electronic address: orubio@althaia.cat.
A EstellaCuidados Intensivos, Hospital Universitario de Jerez, Jerez de la Frontera, Cádiz, España.
L CabreCuidados Intensivos, Comité de Bioética de Cataluña, Catalunya, España.
I Saralegui-RetaCuidados Intensivos, Hospital Universitario de Áraba, Osakidetza Araba, Vitoria-Gasteiz, España.
M C MartinServicio de Medicina Intensiva, Hospital Universitario de Torrejón, Torrejón de Ardoz, Madrid, España.
L ZapataCuidados Intensivos, Hospital de la Santa Creu i Sant Pau, Barcelona, España.
M EsquerdaInstituto Borja de Bioética, Esplugues de Llobregat, Barcelona, España.
R FerrerServicio de Medicina Intensiva, Hospital Universitario Vall de Hebron, Barcelona, España.
A CastellanosÁrea de Medicina Crítica, Hospital Universitario y Politécnico La Fe, Valencia, España.
J TrenadoServicio de Medicina Intensiva, Hospital Universitario Mútua de Terrassa, Terrassa, Barcelona, España.
J AmblasGeriatría y Cuidados paliativos, Hospital Universitario de la Santa Creu de Vic, Central Catalonia Chronicity Research Group (C3RG), Universitat de Vic-UCC, Vic, Barcelona, España.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In view of the exceptional public health situation caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, a consensus work has been promoted from the ethics group of the Spanish Society of Intensive, Critical Medicine and Coronary Units (SEMICYUC), with the objective of finding some answers from ethics to the crossroads between the increase of people with intensive care needs and the effective availability of means.In a very short period, the medical practice framework has been changed to a 'catastrophe medicine' scenario, with the consequent change in the decision-making parameters. In this context, the allocation of resources or the prioritization of treatment become crucial elements, and it is important to have an ethical reference framework to be able to make the necessary clinical decisions. For this, a process of narrative review of the evidence has been carried out, followed by a unsystematic consensus of experts, which has resulted in both the publication of a position paper and recommendations from SEMICYUC itself, and the consensus between 18 scientific societies and 5 institutes/chairs of bioethics and palliative care of a framework document of reference for general ethical recommendations in this context of crisis.

Indexed as

BetacoronavirusClinical Decision-MakingIntensive Care UnitsPandemicsCoronavirus InfectionsCOVID-19Critical CareEthics CommitteesHealth Services Needs and DemandHospital Bed CapacityHumansPneumonia, ViralPrecision MedicineResource AllocationRespiration, ArtificialSARS-CoV-2CatastropheCrisis careEthicsICUPandemic

Identifiers

PMID32402532
PMCPMC7158790

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.