ReviewThe Neurohospitalist2023
End-Of-Life Care in the Potential Donor after Circulatory Death: A Systematic Review.
Review in The Neurohospitalist, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Operational Ethics in the Cardiovascular Intensive Care Unit: A Practical Framework for Ethical Decision-Making.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- When End-of-Life Becomes the Beginning of New Life: Application of the Society of Critical Care Medicine Clinical Practice Guidelines on Adult End-of-Life Care in the ICU to the Setting of Donation After Circulatory Death.Critical care explorations · 2026Article
- A journey from marginality to routine and beyond: single center experience with DCD utilization for liver transplantation in Italy.Updates in surgery · 2026Article
- Care of the Patient Nearing the End of Life in the Neurointensive Care Unit.Neurocritical care · 2024Review
- Modern-Day Practice of DCD Liver Transplantation: Controversies, Innovations, and Future Directions.Current gastroenterology reports · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Donation after circulatory death (DCD) is becoming increasingly common, yet little is known about the way potential donors receive end-of-life care. Purpose: The aims of this systematic review are to describe the current practice in end-of-life care for potential donors and identify metrics that are being used to assess discomfort among these patients. Research design and Study Sample: This review encompasses published literature between June 1, 2000 and June 31, 2020 of end-of-life care received by potential DCD patients. The population of interest was defined as patients eligible for Maastracht classification III donation after circulatory death for a solid organ transplantation. Outcomes examined included: analgesic or palliative protocols, and surrogates of discomfort (eg dyspnea, agitation). Results: Among 141 unique articles, 27 studies were included for full review. The primary reason for exclusion was lack of protocol description, or lack of reporting on analgesic medications. No primary research studies specifically examined distress in the DCD eligible population. Numerous professional guidelines were identified. Surveys of critical care practitioners identified concerns regarding the impact of symptom management on hastening the dying process in the DCD population as a potential barrier to end-of-life palliative treatment. Conclusions: There is a paucity of empirical evidence for end-of-life symptom assessment and management for DCD patients. Key evidence gaps identified for DCD include the need for: i) a multidisciplinary structure of treatment teams and preferred environment for DCD, ii) objective tools for monitoring of distress in this patient population, and iii) evidence guiding the administration of analgesic medications following withdrawal of life sustaining therapy.
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.