ArticleNeuro-oncology practice2021
Ethics consultations in neuro-oncology.
Article in Neuro-oncology practice, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundManagement of patients with brain tumors can lead to ethical and decisional dilemmas. The aim of this study was to characterize ethical conflicts encountered in neuro-oncologic patients.
methodsRetrospective review of ethics consultations performed upon patients with primary and metastatic brain tumors at a tertiary cancer center. An ethics consultation database was examined to characterize ethical conflicts, contextual factors, and interventions by the consultation team.
resultsFifty consultations were reviewed; 28 (56%) patients were women, median age 54 (range 4-86); 27 (54%) patients had a primary central nervous system malignancy; 20 (40%) had brain metastasis. At the time of consultations, 41 (82%) patients lacked decisional capacity; 48 (96%) had a designated surrogate decision maker; 3 (6%) had an advance directive outlining wishes regarding medical treatment; 12 (24%) had a Do Not Attempt Resuscitation (DNAR) order. Ethical conflicts centered upon management of end-of-life (EOL) circumstances in 37 (72%) of cases; of these, 30 did not have decisional capacity. The most common ethical issues were DNAR status, surrogate decision making, and request for nonbeneficial treatment. Consultants resolved conflicts by facilitating decision making for incapacitated patients in 30 (60%) cases, communication between conflicting parties in 10 (20%), and re-articulation of patients' previously stated wishes in 6 (12%).
conclusionsDecisional capacity at EOL represents the primary ethical challenge in care of neuro-oncologic patients. Incomplete awareness among surrogate decision makers of patients' prognosis and preferences contributes to communication gaps and dilemmas. Early facilitation of communication between patients, caregivers, and medical providers may prevent or mitigate conflicts and allow the enactment of patients' goals and values.
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.