Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33180130›Full record

SynthesisJAMA network open2020

Anesthesiologist to Patient Communication: A Systematic Review.

Michael J Tylee, Gordon D Rubenfeld, Duminda Wijeysundera, Michael C Sklar, Sajid Hussain, Neill K J Adhikari

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in JAMA network open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 41 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Michael J TyleeDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Gordon D RubenfeldDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Duminda WijeysunderaDepartment of Anesthesia, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Michael C SklarInterdepartmental Division of Critical Care, University of Toronto, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Sajid HussainDepartment of Intensive Care Medicine, King AbdulAziz Medical City, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Neill K J AdhikariDepartment of Critical Care Medicine, Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Health Sciences Centre · CAKing Abdulaziz Medical City · SASt. Michael's Hospital · CASunnybrook Health Science Centre · CAUniversity of Toronto · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Many patients are admitted to the intensive care unit following surgery, and some of them will experience incomplete recovery. For patients in this situation, preoperative discussions regarding patient values and preferences may direct care decisions. Existing literature shows that it is uncommon for surgeons to have these conversations preoperatively; it is unclear whether anesthesia professionals engage with patients on this topic prior to surgery. Objective: To review the literature on communication between patients and anesthesia professionals, with a focus on discussions related to postoperative critical care. Evidence Review: MEDLINE and Web of Science were searched using specific search criteria from January 1980 to April 2020. Studies describing encounters between patients and anesthesia professionals were selected, and data regarding study objectives, study design, methodology, measures, outcomes, patient characteristics, and clinical setting were extracted and collated. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) reporting guideline was followed. Findings: A total of 12 studies including 1284 individual patient encounters were eligible for inclusion in the review. These studies demonstrated that communication between patients and anesthesia professionals related to postoperative care is rare: only 2 studies reported communication regarding adverse postoperative events, and this communication behavior was reported in only 46 of 1284 consultations (3.6%) across all studies. Additional findings were that communication during these encounters is dominated by anesthetic planning and perioperative logistics, with variable discussion of perioperative risks vs benefits and infrequent elicitation of patient values and preferences. Some data suggest that patients wish to be involved in perioperative decision-making but are often limited by an incomplete understanding of risks and benefits. Conclusions and Relevance: This systematic review found that communication in anesthesia is dominated by anesthetic planning and discussion of preoperative logistics, whereas postoperative critical care is rarely discussed. Most patients who are admitted to an intensive care unit after a major operation will not have had a discussion regarding goals of care specific to protracted recovery or prolonged intensive care with their anesthesiologist.

Indexed as

Physician-Patient RelationsAnesthesiologyCritical CareDecision MakingHumansPatient PreferencePostoperative Care

Identifiers

PMID33180130
PMCPMC7662141
OpenAlexW3102083488

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.