Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34704198›Full record

ReviewHealth care analysis : HCA : journal of health philosophy and policy2022

Ethical Guidance for Hard Decisions: A Critical Review of Early International COVID-19 ICU Triage Guidelines.

Yves Saint James Aquino, Wendy A Rogers, Jackie Leach Scully, Farah Magrabi, Stacy M Carter

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Health care analysis : HCA : journal of health philosophy and policy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed
5.9field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 28 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Do Moral Views Change during a Crisis? An Experiment on Health Care Priority Setting.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. 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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Yves Saint James AquinoAustralian Centre for Health Engagement, Evidence and Values, School of Health and Society, University of Wollongong, Northfields Ave, Wollongong, NSW, 2522, Australia. yaquino@uow.edu.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0981-0029
Wendy A RogersDepartment of Philosophy and Department of Clinical Medicine, Macquarie University, Macquarie Park, NSW, 2109, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9186-870X
Jackie Leach ScullyDisability Innovation Institute, University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW, 2052, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7637-1225
Farah MagrabiAustralian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Macquarie Park, NSW, 2109, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8426-5588
Stacy M CarterAustralian Centre for Health Engagement, Evidence and Values, School of Health and Society, University of Wollongong, Northfields Ave, Wollongong, NSW, 2522, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2617-8694
Macquarie University · AUUniversity of Wollongong · AUUNSW Sydney · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This article provides a critical comparative analysis of the substantive and procedural values and ethical concepts articulated in guidelines for allocating scarce resources in the COVID-19 pandemic. We identified 21 local and national guidelines written in English, Spanish, German and French; applicable to specific and identifiable jurisdictions; and providing guidance to clinicians for decision making when allocating critical care resources during the COVID-19 pandemic. US guidelines were not included, as these had recently been reviewed elsewhere. Information was extracted from each guideline on: 1) the development process; 2) the presence and nature of ethical, medical and social criteria for allocating critical care resources; and 3) the membership of and decision-making procedure of any triage committees. Results of our analysis show the majority appealed primarily to consequentialist reasoning in making allocation decisions, tempered by a largely pluralistic approach to other substantive and procedural values and ethical concepts. Medical and social criteria included medical need, co-morbidities, prognosis, age, disability and other factors, with a focus on seemingly objective medical criteria. There was little or no guidance on how to reconcile competing criteria, and little attention to internal contradictions within individual guidelines. Our analysis reveals the challenges in developing sound ethical guidance for allocating scarce medical resources, highlighting problems in operationalising ethical concepts and principles, divergence between guidelines, unresolved contradictions within the same guideline, and use of naïve objectivism in employing widely used medical criteria for allocating ICU resources.

Indexed as

COVID-19Critical CareHealth Care RationingHumansIntensive Care UnitsPandemicsTriageCOVID-19EthicsIntensive careResource allocationTriage

Identifiers

PMID34704198
PMCPMC8547561
OpenAlexW3210811922

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.