Trial reportJournal of general internal medicine2021
Randomized Controlled Trial of a Decision Support Intervention About Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation for Hospitalized Patients Who Have a High Risk of Death.
Trial report in Journal of general internal medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 3 of them syntheses 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Goals of care discussions in hospitalised patients: systematic review of randomised trials.BMJ supportive & palliative care · 2026Pooled it
- Instability in End-of-Life Goals and Preferences of Patients Who Are Seriously Ill: A Systematic Review.JAMA network open · 2025Pooled it
- Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024Pooled it
- Instruments for Value Elucidation in Older Adults in Clinical Practice-A Scoping Review.Journal of the American Geriatrics Society · 2025Article
- Medical Decision-Making and Bereavement Experiences After Cardiac Arrest: Qualitative Insights From Surrogates.American journal of critical care : an official publication, American Association of Critical-Care Nurses · 2024Article
- Fighting Fires and Battling the Clock: Advance Care Planning in Family Medicine Residency.Family medicine · 2023Article
- Voices of the Future: Junior Physicians' Experiences of Discussing Life-Sustaining Treatments With Hospitalized Patients.Journal of medical education and curricular developmentArticle
- "To Be or Not to Be"-Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation for Hospitalized People Who Have a Low Probability of Benefit: Qualitative Analysis of Semi-structured Interviews.MDM policy & practiceArticle
- Evaluation of a Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Video Decision Aid for Pet Owners.Journal of veterinary emergency and critical care (San Antonio, Tex. : 2001)Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 8 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMany seriously ill hospitalized patients have cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) as part of their care plan, but CPR is unlikely to achieve the goals of many seriously ill hospitalized patients.
objectiveTo determine if a multicomponent decision support intervention changes documented orders for CPR in the medical record, compared to usual care.
designOpen-label randomized controlled trial. PATIENTS: Patients on internal medicine and neurology wards at two tertiary care teaching hospitals who had a 1-year mortality greater than 10% as predicted with a validated model and whose care plan included CPR, if needed.
interventionBoth the control and intervention groups received usual communication about CPR at the discretion of their care team. The intervention group participated in a values clarification exercise and watched a CPR video decision aid. MAIN MEASURE: The primary outcome was the proportion of patients who had a no-CPR order at 14 days after enrollment. KEY
resultsWe recruited 200 patients between October 2017 and October 2018. Mean age was 77 years. There was no difference between the groups in no-CPR orders 14 days after enrollment (17/100 (17%) intervention vs 17/99 (17%) control, risk difference, - 0.2%) (95% confidence interval - 11 to 10%; p = 0.98). In addition, there were no differences between groups in decisional conflict summary score or satisfaction with decision-making. Patients in the intervention group had less conflict about understanding treatment options (decisional conflict knowledge subscale score mean (SD), 17.5 (26.5) intervention arm vs 40.4 (38.1) control; scale range 0-100 with lower scores reflecting less conflict).
conclusionsAmong seriously ill hospitalized patients who had CPR as part of their care plan, this decision support intervention did not increase the likelihood of no-CPR orders compared to usual care. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Canadian Frailty Network, The Ottawa Hospital Academic Medical Organization.
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.