ArticleThe American journal of bioethics : AJOB2020
Eliminating Categorical Exclusion Criteria in Crisis Standards of Care Frameworks.
Article in The American journal of bioethics : AJOB, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- Beyond Capacity: Resilience of Intensive Care Staff During the COVID-19-Related Near-Disaster in Sweden.Nursing in critical care · 2025Article
- Minnesota Hospitals' Plans for Implementing Statewide Guidance on Allocation of Scarce Critical Care Resources During the COVID-19 Pandemic.Mayo Clinic proceedings. Innovations, quality & outcomes · 2024Article
- Article
- Weighted Lottery to Equitably Allocate Scarce Supply of COVID-19 Monoclonal Antibody.JAMA health forum · 2023Article
- Equitably Allocating Resources during Crises: Racial Differences in Mortality Prediction Models.American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine · 2021Article
- Ageism in the COVID-19 pandemic: age-based discrimination in triage decisions and beyond.History and philosophy of the life sciences · 2021Article
- Ethics of ICU triage during COVID-19.British medical bulletin · 2021Review
- Using the COVID-19 as an excuse for unjustified devaluation of preterm infants.Acta paediatrica (Oslo, Norway : 1992) · 2021Article
- Among equity and dignity: an argument-based review of European ethical guidelines under COVID-19.BMC medical ethics · 2021Review
- Public Opinion on Priorities Toward Fair Allocation of Ventilators During COVID-19 Pandemic: A Nationwide Survey.Frontiers in public health · 2021Article
- Protecting our Elders and Developing Equitable Policies During Public Health Emergencies: Ethical Recommendations.Current geriatrics reports · 2021Review
- Clinical and Ethical Considerations in Allocation of Ventilators in an Influenza Pandemic or Other Public Health Disaster: A Comparison of the 2007 and 2015 New York State Ventilator Allocation Guidelines.Disaster medicine and public health preparedness · 2020Article
- COVID-19: instruments for the allocation of mechanical ventilators-a narrative review.Critical care (London, England) · 2020Review
- COVID-19, disability and the context of healthcare triage in South Africa: Notes in a time of pandemic.African journal of disability · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
During public health crises including the COVID-19 pandemic, resource scarcity and contagion risks may require health systems to shift-to some degree-from a usual clinical ethic, focused on the well-being of individual patients, to a public health ethic, focused on population health. Many triage policies exist that fall under the legal protections afforded by "crisis standards of care," but they have key differences. We critically appraise one of the most fundamental differences among policies, namely the use of criteria to categorically exclude certain patients from eligibility for otherwise standard medical services. We examine these categorical exclusion criteria from ethical, legal, disability, and implementation perspectives. Focusing our analysis on the most common type of exclusion criteria, which are disease-specific, we conclude that optimal policies for critical care resource allocation and the use of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) should not use categorical exclusions. We argue that the avoidance of categorical exclusions is often practically feasible, consistent with public health norms, and mitigates discrimination against persons with disabilities.
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.