ReviewEuropean cardiology2020
Ethical Issues in Decision-making Regarding the Elderly Affected by Coronavirus Disease 2019: An Expert Opinion.
Review in European cardiology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Delirium and Mortality in Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) - A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Archives of gerontology and geriatricsPooled it
- Relationship between moral sensitivity and the quality of nursing care for the elderly with Covid-19 in Iranian hospitals.BMC health services research · 2022Article
- Acute Coronary Syndrome in the Older Patient.Journal of clinical medicine · 2021Review
- Older people at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic: A scoping review.Journal of health monitoring · 2021Article
- Ageism against older adults in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic: an integrative review.Revista de saude publica · 2021Review
- COVID-19 and Quarantine, a Catalyst for Ageism.Frontiers in public health · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is resulting in ethical decisions regarding resource allocation. Prioritisation reflects established practices that regulate the distribution of finite resources when demand exceeds supply. However, discrimination based on sex, race or age has no role in prioritisation unless clearly justified. The risk posed by COVID-19 is higher for elderly people than for younger people, so older adults should be prioritised in preventive measures. In the case of people who already have COVID-19, healthcare professionals might prioritise those most likely to survive. Making decisions based on chronological age alone is not justified; in addition to age, other aspects that determine theoretical life expectancy must be taken into account. Individualised correct prioritisation in the allocation of scarce resources is essential to good 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.