ArticleActa anaesthesiologica Scandinavica2022
Who gets the ventilator? A multicentre survey of intensivists' opinions of triage during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Article in Acta anaesthesiologica Scandinavica, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Frailty prevalence in 42 European countries by age and gender: development of the SHARE Frailty Atlas for Europe.GeroScience · 2024Article
- Health Professional vs Layperson Values and Preferences on Scarce Resource Allocation.JAMA network open · 2024Article
- Impact of Surge Strain and Pandemic Progression on Prognostication by an Established COVID-19-Specific Severity Score.Critical care explorations · 2023Article
- Limiting life-sustaining treatment for very old ICU patients: cultural challenges and diverse practices.Annals of intensive care · 2023Article
- The role of clinical phenotypes in decisions to limit life-sustaining treatment for very old patients in the ICU.Annals of intensive care · 2023Article
- Who gets the ventilator? A multicentre survey of intensivists' opinions of triage during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic.Acta anaesthesiologica Scandinavica · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic has caused a shortage of intensive care resources. Intensivists' opinion of triage and ventilator allocation during the COVID-19 pandemic is not well described.
methodsThis was a survey concerning patient numbers, bed capacity, triage guidelines, and three virtual cases involving ventilator allocations. Physicians from 400 ICUs in a research network were invited to participate. Preferences were assessed with a five-point Likert scale. Additionally, age, gender, work experience, geography, and religion were recorded.
resultsOf 437 responders 31% were female. The mean age was 44.4 (SD 11.1) with a mean ICU experience of 13.7 (SD 10.5) years. Respondents were mostly European (88%). Sixty-six percent had triage guidelines available. Younger patients and caretakers of children were favoured for ventilator allocation although this was less clear if this involved withdrawal of the ventilator from another patient. Decisions did not differ with ICU experience, gender, religion, or guideline availability. Consultation of colleagues or an ethical committee decreased with age and male gender.
conclusionIntensivists appeared to prioritise younger patients for ventilator allocation. The tendency to consult colleagues about triage decreased with age and male gender. Many found such tasks to be not purely medical and that authorities should assume responsibility for triage during resource scarcity.
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.