Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35815180›Full record

ReviewCritical care explorations2022

Addressing Futility: A Practical Approach.

Piroska K Kopar, Adrienne Visani, Kyler Squirrell, Douglas E Brown

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Critical care explorations, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
5.0field-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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 29 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Guideline
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Futility considerations in surgical ethics.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2023
    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

4 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.

Piroska K KoparAll authors: CHESS: Center for Humanism and Ethics in Surgical Specialties, Department of Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine in Saint Louis, Saint Louis, MO.
Adrienne VisaniAll authors: CHESS: Center for Humanism and Ethics in Surgical Specialties, Department of Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine in Saint Louis, Saint Louis, MO.
Kyler SquirrellAll authors: CHESS: Center for Humanism and Ethics in Surgical Specialties, Department of Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine in Saint Louis, Saint Louis, MO.
Douglas E BrownAll authors: CHESS: Center for Humanism and Ethics in Surgical Specialties, Department of Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine in Saint Louis, Saint Louis, MO.
Apple (Israel) · IL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Limiting or withdrawing nonbeneficial medical care is considered ethically responsible throughout most of critical care and medical ethics literature. Practically, however, setting limits to treatment is often challenging. We review the literature to identify best practices for using the definition of futility as an anchoring concept to aid the ethical practice of ICU clinicians. DATA SOURCES: Source data were obtained from a PubMed literature review. STUDY SELECTION: English language articles were chosen based on relevance to medical futility ethics, end-of-life care in the ICU, or communication and conflict mitigation strategies. DATA EXTRACTION: Independent evaluation of selected articles for recurrent content themes as relevant to our clinical case were compared among authors and based on consensus, quantitative and qualitative data from these sources were referenced directly. DATA SYNTHESIS: When life-sustaining treatment is unlikely to achieve a meaningful benefit such as symptom improvement, continued care may be discordant with the patient's goals. Institutional and cultural norms, unconscious biases, and difficulty with navigating conflicts all influence how un(comfortable) clinicians feel in setting limits to futile care. Defining futility in light of the patient's goals and values, focusing on outcomes rather than interventions, and being proactive in communication with families are the staples of medically meaningful critical care. Palliative measures should be framed affirmatively, and clinicians should be transparent about the limits of medicine.

conclusionsClinicians have an ethical obligation not to provide futile care. To practice accordingly, we must clearly understand the nature and forms of futility. Armed with this understanding, our discussions with family and surrogates in the ICU should fundamentally comprise 1) eliciting the patient's values and goals, 2) communicating which interventions serve those values and goals and which do not, and 3) offering only those interventions whose likely outcomes are in line with said values and goals.

Indexed as

end-of-life careethics at the end of lifefutilitygoals-of-carenonbeneficial care

Identifiers

PMID35815180
PMCPMC9257305
OpenAlexW4283828427

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.