Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32728768›Full record

ReviewMedizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin2020

Decisions on the allocation of intensive care resources in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic : Clinical and ethical recommendations of DIVI, DGINA, DGAI, DGIIN, DGNI, DGP, DGP and AEM.

Georg Marckmann, Gerald Neitzke, Jan Schildmann, Andrej Michalsen, Jochen Dutzmann, Christiane Hartog, Susanne Jöbges, Kathrin Knochel, Guido Michels, Martin Pin and 4 more

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Medizinische Klinik, Intensivmedizin und Notfallmedizin, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
–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

14 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 3Journal of preventive medicine and hygiene · 2022
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. [COVID-19 in old age-The geriatric perspective].Zeitschrift fur Gerontologie und Geriatrie · 2021
    Review
  14. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors.

Georg MarckmannInstitute of Ethics, History, and Theory of Medicine, Ludwig-Maximilians-University Munich, Munich, Germany.
Gerald NeitzkeInstitute for History, Ethics and Philosophy of Medicine, Hannover Medical School, Hannover, Germany.
Jan SchildmannInstitute for the History and Ethics of Medicine, Interdisciplinary Center for Health Sciences, Martin-Luther-University Halle-Wittenberg, Halle (Saale), Germany.
Andrej MichalsenClinic for Anaesthesiology, Intensive Care, Emergency Care and Analgesic Therapy, Hospital Tettnang, Tettnang, Germany.
Jochen DutzmannMedical University and Polyclinic for Internal Medicine III, University Hospital Halle (Saale), Halle (Saale), Germany.
Christiane HartogClinic for Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care, Charité Medical School Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Susanne JöbgesInstitute for Biomedical Ethics and History of Medicine, University Zürich, Zürich, Switzerland.
Kathrin KnochelPaediatric Clinic and Paediatric Polyclinic Dr. von Haunerschen Kinderspital, University Hospital Munich, Munich, Germany.
Guido MichelsDepartment for Acute and Emergency Medicine, St. Antonius Hospital Eschweiler, Eschweiler, Germany.
Martin PinCentral Interdisciplinary Emergency Department, Florence-Nightingale-Hospital Kaiserswerther Diakonie, Düsseldorf, Germany.
Reimer RiessenMedical Intensive Care Unit 93, Department for Internal Medicine, University Hospital Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany.
Annette RoggeDivision Ethics of Medicine, Christian-Albrechts-University Kiel, Kiel, Germany.
Jochen TaupitzLegal Research Department, University Mannheim, Mannheim, Germany.
Uwe JanssensMedical Clinic and Medical Intensive Care Medicine, St. Antonius Hospital Eschweiler, Dechant-Deckers-Str. 8, 52249, Eschweiler, Germany. uwe.janssens@sah-eschweiler.de.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In view of the globally evolving coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic, German hospitals rapidly expanded their intensive care capacities. However, it is possible that even with an optimal use of the increased resources, these will not suffice for all patients in need. Therefore, recommendations for the allocation of intensive care resources in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic have been developed by a multidisciplinary group of authors with the support of eight scientific medical societies. The recommendations for procedures and criteria for prioritisations in case of resource scarcity are based on scientific evidence, ethicolegal considerations and practical experience. Medical decisions must always be based on the need and the treatment preferences of the individual patient. In addition to this patient-centred approach, prioritisations in case of resource scarcity require a supraindividual perspective. In such situations, prioritisations should be based on the criterion of clinical prospect of success in order to minimize the number of preventable deaths due to resource scarcity and to avoid discrimination based on age, disabilities or social factors. The assessment of the clinical prospect of success should take into account the severity of the current illness, severe comorbidities and the patient's general health status prior to the current illness.

Indexed as

CoronavirusCOVID-19Critical CareHumansMethacrylatesPandemicsResource AllocationSARS-CoV-22-aminoethylmethacrylateMethacrylatesIntensive care medicineJusticePrioritisationScarcityTriage

Identifiers

PMID32728768
PMCPMC7387419

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.