ArticleJournal of intensive medicine2022
Criteria deemed important by ICU patients when designating a reference person.
Article in Journal of intensive medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: We investigated the criteria that hospitalized patients in intensive care units (ICUs) deem important when designating relatives who are best qualified to interact with the caregiving staff. Methods: We conducted an exploratory, observational, prospective, multicenter study between March 1, 2018, and October 31, 2018, within two ICUs. A 12-item questionnaire was distributed to patients in the ICUs by the investigating physicians. Patients were considered eligible if they had a good understanding of the French language and if they had not officially designated surrogates before ICU admission. Results: Seventy-one patients whose average age was 63.9± 17.3 years, of whom 21 (29.5%) were females, completed the questionnaire. The average Charlson comorbidity score was 2.5 ± 2.4, and the average Simplified Acute Physiology Score (SAPS II) was 39.8 ± 16.5. The main etiology was respiratory infection (40.8%), followed by sepsis (23.9%). The most important criteria identified by patients when selecting reference persons were a good knowledge of the patient's wishes and values, an emotional attachment to the patient, and being a family member. Conclusion: Our findings reveal that ICU patients considered the following criteria to be critical when designating reference persons: knowledge of their wishes and the existence of emotional and family attachments.
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.