Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33308184›Full record

ArticleBMC neurology2020

Discussing personalized prognosis in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: development of a communication guide.

Remko M van Eenennaam, Willeke J Kruithof, Michael A van Es, Esther T Kruitwagen-van Reenen, Henk-Jan Westeneng, Johanna M A Visser-Meily, Leonard H van den Berg, Anita Beelen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC neurology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. EMPATIA: A Guide for Communicating the Diagnosis of Neuromuscular Diseases.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Prognostic communication in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis: findings from a Nationwide Italian survey.Neurological sciences : official journal of the Italian Neurological Society and of the Italian Society of Clinical Neurophysiology · 2024
    Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
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

8 authors.

Remko M van EenennaamDepartment of Rehabilitation, Physical Therapy Science & Sports, UMC Utrecht Brain Center, University Medical Center Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Willeke J KruithofDepartment of Rehabilitation, Physical Therapy Science & Sports, UMC Utrecht Brain Center, University Medical Center Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Michael A van EsDepartment of Neurology, UMC Utrecht Brain Center, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Esther T Kruitwagen-van ReenenDepartment of Rehabilitation, Physical Therapy Science & Sports, UMC Utrecht Brain Center, University Medical Center Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Henk-Jan WestenengDepartment of Neurology, UMC Utrecht Brain Center, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Johanna M A Visser-MeilyDepartment of Rehabilitation, Physical Therapy Science & Sports, UMC Utrecht Brain Center, University Medical Center Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Leonard H van den BergDepartment of Neurology, UMC Utrecht Brain Center, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Anita BeelenDepartment of Rehabilitation, Physical Therapy Science & Sports, UMC Utrecht Brain Center, University Medical Center Utrecht, Heidelberglaan 100, 3584 CX, Utrecht, the Netherlands. j.a.j.beelen@umcutrecht.nl.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1269-0710

Funding

ALS stichting Nederland (Netherlands ALS foundation) 2016-51
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPersonalized ENCALS survival prediction model reliably estimates the personalized prognosis of patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Concerns were raised on discussing personalized prognosis without causing anxiety and destroying hope. Tailoring communication to patient readiness and patient needs mediates the impact of prognostic disclosure. We developed a communication guide to support physicians in discussing personalized prognosis tailored to individual needs and preferences of people with ALS and their families.

methodsA multidisciplinary working group of neurologists, rehabilitation physicians, and healthcare researchers A) identified relevant topics for guidance, B) conducted a systematic review on needs of patients regarding prognostic discussion in life-limiting disease, C) drafted recommendations based on evidence and expert opinion, and refined and finalized these recommendations in consensus rounds, based on feedback of an expert advisory panel (patients, family member, ethicist, and spiritual counsellor).

resultsA) Topics identified for guidance were 1) filling in the ENCALS survival model, and interpreting outcomes and uncertainty, and 2) tailoring discussion to individual needs and preferences of patients (information needs, role and needs of family, severe cognitive impairment or frontotemporal dementia, and non-western patients). B) 17 studies were included in the systematic review. C) Consensus procedures on drafted recommendations focused on selection of outcomes, uncertainty about estimated survival, culturally sensitive communication, and lack of decisional capacity. Recommendations for discussing the prognosis include the following: discuss prognosis based on the prognostic groups and their median survival, or, if more precise information is desired, on the interquartile range of the survival probability. Investigate needs and preferences of the patients and their families for prognostic disclosure, regardless of cultural background. If the patient does not want to know their prognosis, with patient permission discuss the prognosis with their family. If the patient is judged to lack decisional capacity, ask the family if they want to discuss the prognosis. Tailor prognostic disclosure step by step, discuss it in terms of time range, and emphasize uncertainty of individual survival time.

conclusionThis communication guide supports physicians in tailoring discussion of personalized prognosis to the individual needs and preferences of people with ALS and their families.

Indexed as

Amyotrophic Lateral SclerosisCommunicationPhysician-Patient RelationsTruth DisclosureFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPatient Education as TopicPrognosisAmyotrophic lateral sclerosisCommunication guidePersonalized prognosisPhysician-patient communicationPrognosisTruth disclosure

Identifiers

PMID33308184
PMCPMC7734773

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.