Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34080083›Full record

ArticleNeurocritical care2021

Prognostic Uncertainty in Critically Ill Patients with Traumatic Brain Injury: A Multicenter Qualitative Study.

Kelsey Jones, Thomas Quinn, Kathleen M Mazor, Susanne Muehlschlegel

Abstract readMulticenter Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Neurocritical care, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed
–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

22 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Development of web- and mobile-based shared decision-making tools in the neurological intensive care unit.Neurotherapeutics : the journal of the American Society for Experimental NeuroTherapeutics · 2025
    Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Observational
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Neuroprognostication: a conceptual framework.Nature reviews. Neurology · 2022
    Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Kelsey JonesDepartment of Neurology, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, MA, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6440-159X
Thomas QuinnDepartment of Internal Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Harvard Medical School, Harvard University, Boston, MA, USA.
Kathleen M MazorDepartment of Internal Medicine, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, MA, USA.
Susanne MuehlschlegelDepartment of Neurology, University of Massachusetts Medical School, Worcester, MA, USA. Susanne.Muehlschlegel@umassmemorial.org.

Funding

University of Massachusetts Center for Clinical and Translational ScienceUL1TR000161 · NCATS · UNIV OF MASSACHUSETTS MED SCH WORCESTER · PI LUZURIAGA, KATHERINE F · 2012 to 2015
$11.0M
Improving Clinical Decisions for Critically Ill Traumatic Brain Injury PatientsK23HD080971 · NICHD · UNIV OF MASSACHUSETTS MED SCH WORCESTER · PI MUEHLSCHLEGEL, SUSANNE · 2015 to 2019
$751k
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR000161
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPrognostic uncertainty is frequently cited as a barrier to communication between physicians and patients and is particularly burdensome for surrogate decision-makers, who must make choices on behalf of their incapacitated family members. The Conceptual Taxonomy of Uncertainty is one model through which physician and surrogate communication can be analyzed to identify strategies for reducing uncertainty in surrogate decision-making. Our objective was to examine themes of uncertainty in physician communication of prognosis and surrogate goals-of-care decision-making for critically ill patients with traumatic brain injury (TBI).

methodsWe performed a secondary analysis of a previous qualitative study that involved semistructured interviews of 16 surrogates of critically ill patients with TBI from two level 1 trauma centers and 20 TBI expert physicians from seven trauma centers. Open-ended questions about prognostic uncertainty were asked. We identified major themes with an inductive approach. The Conceptual Taxonomy of Uncertainty was applied to further characterize these themes as data-centered, system-centered, and patient-centered issues of uncertainty.

resultsNearly all surrogates (15 of 16) and physicians (19 of 20) recognized the emotional burden of uncertainty in the decision-making process for surrogates. More than three quarters of surrogates (13 of 16) described instances in which a lack of information regarding their loved one's disease or prognosis created uncertainty in their decision-making process, identifying both positive and negative instances of prognostic communication by physicians. We found that physicians used one of three strategies to communicate prognostic uncertainty to surrogates: leaving no room for uncertainty, honesty about uncertainty, and range of possibilities. These strategies did not meet the communication preferences of the majority of surrogates, with more than a third of decision-makers (6 of 15) being frustrated by too much ambiguity about prognosis as well as the failure to acknowledge the existence of uncertainty.

conclusionsWe found that physician communication strategies rarely addressed surrogate needs regarding uncertainty adequately, suggesting an urgent need for future research into improved communication of prognostic uncertainty.

Indexed as

Brain Injuries, TraumaticCritical IllnessDecision MakingHumansIntensive Care UnitsPrognosisUncertaintyCommunication barriersIntensive care unitsPatient care planningShared decision-makingTerminal careTraumatic brain injuriesUncertainty

Identifiers

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.