Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34006543›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2021

Identifying ethical values for guiding triage decisions during the COVID-19 pandemic: an Italian ethical committee perspective using Delphi methodology.

Anita Zeneli, Giovanni Brandi, Giuseppe Di Pasquale, Danilo Orlandini, Piero De Carolis, Francesca Bravi, Francesco Pugliese, Elisabetta Poluzzi, Fausto Catena, Filippo Giovanardi and 4 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
2.2field-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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. How the Anthropocene is changing bioethics.Journal of preventive medicine and hygiene · 2024
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

14 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Anita ZeneliIstituto Scientifico Romagnolo per lo Studio e la Cura dei Tumori IRST IRCCS, Meldola, Italy.
Giovanni BrandiSant'Orsola-Malpighi Hospital, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy.
Giuseppe Di PasqualeEthical Committee AVEC, Bologna, Italy.
Danilo OrlandiniEthical Committee AVEC, Bologna, Italy.
Piero De CarolisEthical Committee AVEC, Bologna, Italy.
Francesca BraviSant'Anna University Hospital of Ferrara, Ferrara, Italy francesca.bravi@auslromagna.it.ORCID 0000-0002-9973-720X
Francesco PuglieseUniversity of Rome La Sapienza, Rome, Italy.
Elisabetta PoluzziSant'Orsola-Malpighi Hospital, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy.
Fausto CatenaEmergency and Trauma Surgery, Maggiore Hospital, Parma, Italy.
Filippo GiovanardiAUSL IRCCS, Reggio Emilia, Italy.
Giorgia ValpianiSant'Anna University Hospital of Ferrara, Ferrara, Italy.
Renato MantovaniEthical Committee AVEC, Bologna, Italy.
Eugenia MagnanimiUniversity of Rome La Sapienza, Rome, Italy.
Primiano IannoneHigher Institute of Health, Rome, Italy.
IRCCS Azienda Ospedliero-Universitaria di Bologna Policlinico di Sant'Orsola · ITSapienza University of Rome · ITAzienda Sanitaria Unità Locale di Reggio Emilia · ITIstituto Scientifico Romagnolo per lo Studio e la Cura dei Tumori · ITOspedale Maggiore · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThis study aimed to identify the guiding ethical principles that should be considered for critical resource allocation during pandemic emergency situations, and especially for the COVID-19 outbreak. The secondary objective was to define the priority to be assigned to each principle.

settingThe study was conducted from March to June 2020 within the context of an ethical committee (EC) in Northern Italy.

participantsEleven EC members and five additional external healthcare and bioethical professionals, forming a multidisciplinary panel, took part in the study. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The compilation of a list of ethical principles (maximum of 10 items) and their priority ranking and application within an emergency pandemic context was established as the expected outcome of this work.

resultsA consensus on 10 guiding ethical principles was reached by the multidisciplinary panel. Transparency ranked first on the priority list as the most frequently voted principle, followed by the number of lives saved, life-years saved, respect for individuals' autonomy and equity. Other principles including life cycle, 'sickest first', reciprocity, instrumental value and lottery were also considered appropriate as potential tiebreakers. These principles were discussed and made consistent with the current Italian pandemic context by producing an explanatory document.

conclusionsThe identified principles could be used in preparedness plans to guide resource allocation during pandemic events. By combining their rank and relevance in relation to disease, health system organisations, social and economic settings, and critical resources at risk of scarcity, these principles could help to maximise the benefit of resource use for the community, thus reducing inequalities for individuals.

Indexed as

COVID-19PandemicsHumansItalySARS-CoV-2TriageCOVID-19ethics (see medical ethics)intensive & critical caremedical ethics

Identifiers

PMID34006543
PMCPMC8130741
OpenAlexW3163433881

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.