Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33638124›Full record

ArticleJournal of bioethical inquiry2021

Ethics Consultation for Adult Solid Organ Transplantation Candidates and Recipients: A Single Centre Experience.

Andrew M Courtwright, Kim S Erler, Julia I Bandini, Mary Zwirner, M Cornelia Cremens, Thomas H McCoy, Ellen M Robinson, Emily Rubin

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of bioethical inquiry, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Delayed mortality among solid organ transplant recipients hospitalized for COVID-19.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2022
    Article
  5. Goodbye Hippocrates?Journal of bioethical inquiry · 2021
    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 at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Andrew M CourtwrightDepartment of Pulmonary and Critical Care, Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania, Gates 940, Philadelphia, PA, 19102, USA. Andrew.Courtwright@uphs.upenn.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9511-5975
Kim S ErlerOptimum Care Committee, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.
Julia I BandiniRAND Corporation, Boston, MA, USA.
Mary ZwirnerOptimum Care Committee, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.
M Cornelia CremensOptimum Care Committee, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.
Thomas H McCoyOptimum Care Committee, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.
Ellen M RobinsonOptimum Care Committee, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.
Emily RubinOptimum Care Committee, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.
Massachusetts General Hospital · USHospital of the University of Pennsylvania · USMGH Institute of Health Professions · USRAND Corporation · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Systematic study of the intersection of ethics consultation services and solid organ transplants and recipients can identify and illustrate ethical issues that arise in the clinical care of these patients, including challenges beyond resource allocation. This was a single-centre, retrospective cohort study of all adult ethics consultations between January 1, 2007, and December 31, 2017, at a large academic medical centre in the north-eastern United States. Of the 880 ethics consultations, sixty (6.8 per cent ) involved solid organ transplant, thirty-nine (65.0 per cent) for candidates and twenty-one (35.0 per cent ) for recipients. Ethics consultations were requested for 4.3 per cent of heart, 4.9 per cent of lung, 0.3 per cent of liver, and 0.3 per cent of kidney transplant recipients over the study period. Nurses were more likely to request ethics consultations for recipients than physicians (80.0 per cent vs 20.0 per cent , p = 0.006). The most common reason for consultation among transplant candidates was discussion about intensity of treatment or goals of care after the patient was not or was no longer a transplant candidate. The most common reason for ethics consultation among transplant recipients was disagreement between transplant providers and patients/families/non-transplant healthcare professionals over the appropriate intensity of treatment for recipients. Very few consultations involved questions about appropriate resource allocation. Ethics consultants involved in these cases most often navigated communication challenges between transplant and non-transplant healthcare professionals and patients and families.

Indexed as

Ethics ConsultationOrgan TransplantationPhysiciansAdultEthicistsHumansRetrospective StudiesUnited StatesEthics committeeEthics consultationLife-sustaining treatmentOrgan transplantationResource allocationTransplant recipients

Identifiers

PMID33638124
PMCPMC7908944
OpenAlexW3132140932

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.