ArticleResuscitation plus2021
Low adherence to legislation regarding Do-Not-Attempt-Cardiopulmonary-Resuscitation orders in a Swedish University Hospital.
Article in Resuscitation plus, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluation of adherence to national regulations for documentation of limitations of life-sustaining treatments after a limited intervention at a Swedish hospital.Resuscitation plus · 2026Article
- A content and quality analysis on open online platform videos on do not resuscitate (DNR).Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Treatment limitations and participation in elderly patients - the gap between medical-ethical guidelines and clinical practice: a cross sectional-study from Sweden.BMC geriatrics · 2025Article
- To withhold resuscitation - The Swedish system's rules and challenges.Resuscitation plus · 2023Article
- 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
8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe ethical principles of resuscitation have been incorporated into Swedish legislation so that a decision to not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation (DNACPR) entails (1) consultation with patient or relatives if consultation with patient was not possible and documentation of their attitudes; (2) consultation with other licensed caregivers; (3) documentation of the grounds for the DNACPR. Our aim was to evaluate adherence to this legislation, explore the grounds for the decision and the attitudes of patients and relatives towards DNACPR orders.
methodsWe included DNACPR forms issued after admission through the emergency department at Karolinska University Hospital between 1st January and 31st October, 2015. Quantitative analysis evaluated adherence to legislation and qualitative analysis of a random sample of 20% evaluated the grounds for the decision and the attitudes.
resultsThe cohort consisted of 3583 DNACPR forms. In 40% of these it was impossible to consult the patient, and relatives were consulted in 46% of these cases. For competent patients, consultation occurred in 28% and the most common attitude was to wish to refrain from resuscitation. Relatives were consulted in 26% and they mainly agreed with the decision. Grounds for the DNAR decision was most commonly severe chronic comorbidity, malignancy or multimorbidity with or without an acute condition. All requirements of the legislation were fulfilled in 10% of the cases.
conclusionIn 90% of the cases physicians failed to fulfil all requirements in the Swedish legislation regarding DNAR orders. The decision was mostly based on chronic, severe comorbidity or multimorbidity.
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.