Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37025874›Full record

ReviewHeliyon2023

Breaking bad news in medical services: a comprehensive systematic review.

Rostam Jalali, Amir Jalali, Milad Jalilian

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Heliyon, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
12.7field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Brazilian PENSA protocol: practical guide to difficult communication.Revista da Associacao Medica Brasileira (1992) · 2024
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Rostam JalaliNursing Department, Nursing & Midwifery School, Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences, Kermanshah, Iran.
Amir JalaliDepartment of Psychiatric Nursing, Nursing & Midwifery School, Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences, Kermanshah, Iran.
Milad JalilianNursing Department, Nursing & Midwifery School, Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences, Kermanshah, Iran.
Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences · IR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: This study was performed with the aims of screening the previous studies on breaking bad news in all medical wards. Methods: Eligible observational studies were selected. The quality of the studies was assessed using the STROBE checklist. The findings were reported using Garrard's table. All the stages of the present study were performed in terms of the PRISMA statement. Results: Totally, 40 articles were included in the study and 96 items were extracted. The results show that breaking bad news is a recipient-centered process. Respect, empathy, and support were reported. The news presenters are better to use guidelines based on evidence-based findings. It is suggested that the presenter should use simple and understandable content. Moreover, suitable time and space are important to present the news. The results show the importance of paying enough attention to the emotions of the recipient and the need to provide support after breaking bad news. Conclusion: The recipient must be the center of the programs. It is necessary to pay attention to the characteristics of the news presenter, the news content, and finally the support.Practice Implication: Understand the recipient, trained presenter, and use of the evidence-based results, improve the breaking bad news outcome.

Indexed as

Bad newsBreaking bad newsCritical care outcomesCritical patientsCultureDeathMedical servicesTruth disclosures

Identifiers

PMID37025874
PMCPMC10070541
OpenAlexW4353096548

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.