Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35866708›Full record

ArticleAnnals of neurology2022

Prognostic Discussion for Infants with Neurologic Conditions: Qualitative Analysis of Family Conferences.

Monica E Lemmon, Mary C Barks, Sarah Bernstein, J Kelly Davis, Megan G Jiao, Erica C Kaye, Hannah C Glass, Debra Brandon, Peter A Ubel

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of neurology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

11 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Well-being in parents of infants with neurological conditions: from birth to 6 months after discharge.Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Observational
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. 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

9 authors.

Monica E LemmonDepartment of Pediatrics, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-6253-775X
Mary C BarksDepartment of Pediatrics, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA.
Sarah BernsteinDepartment of Pediatrics, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA.
J Kelly DavisDuke-Margolis Center for Health Policy, Washington, DC, USA.
Megan G JiaoDuke-Margolis Center for Health Policy, Washington, DC, USA.
Erica C KayeDepartment of Oncology, St Jude Children's Research Hospital, Memphis, TN, USA.
Hannah C GlassDepartment of Pediatrics, UCSF Benioff Children's Hospital, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Debra BrandonDepartment of Pediatrics, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA.
Peter A UbelDepartment of Population Health Sciences, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA.

Funding

Decision Making for Infants with Neurologic ConditionsK23NS116453 · NINDS · DUKE UNIVERSITY · PI LEMMON, MONICA · 2020 to 2024
$942k
NINDS NIH HHS K23 NS116453
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveWe characterize the content and role of prognostic discussion for infants with neurologic conditions.

methodsIn this descriptive qualitative study, we prospectively enrolled infants (age < 1 year) in the intensive care unit with a neurologic condition anticipated to have ≥1 family conference about prognosis or goals of care. We audiorecorded family conferences as they occurred. We used a rapid-cycle qualitative approach to identify and refine themes.

resultsForty infants and 61 parents were enrolled; 68 family conferences occurred for 24 infants. The majority of infant cases (n = 23/24, 96%) and conferences (n = 64/68, 94%) included discussion of neurologic prognosis. Common infant diagnoses included prematurity (n = 12, 52%), genetic conditions (n = 9, 35%), and brain malformations (n = 7, 30%). We identified 2 themes relating to the characterization of the infant's prognosis: (1) predictions of impairment and (2) rationale for prognostic predictions. We identified 3 themes characterizing the role of prognostic discussion: (1) aligning parent and clinician understanding of infant outcome, (2) influencing decision-making, and (3) preparing for life at home. We identified 2 themes characterizing discussion of prognostic uncertainty: (1) multilayered types of uncertainty and (2) holding space for hope alongside uncertainty.

interpretationIn this cohort of infants with neurologic conditions and their parents, we identified salient themes characterizing the content and role of discussion about neurologic outcome. Our findings highlight that prognostic discussion focuses on anticipated impairments, informs decision-making, and helps families prepare for home life. Future work should characterize whether these findings align with parent preferences for prognostic disclosure. ANN NEUROL 2022;92:699-709.

Indexed as

ParentsProfessional-Family RelationsFamilyHumansInfantIntensive Care UnitsPrognosisQualitative Research

Identifiers

PMID35866708
PMCPMC9600061

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.