ArticleBMJ open2023
Decision Aids in the ICU: a scoping review.
Article in BMJ open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Research priorities for intensive care: A stakeholder-informed priority-setting partnership.Critical care and resuscitation : journal of the Australasian Academy of Critical Care Medicine · 2026Article
- Admission to intensive care: a matter of shared decision-making in the very old?European geriatric medicine · 2026Review
- Time-limited trials for acute dialysis decision-making for critically ill older patients: rationale, communication strategies, and future research.Current opinion in nephrology and hypertension · 2026Review
- Shared Decision-Making With a Surrogate for Life-Sustaining Treatment of Critically Ill Patients: Protocol for a Scoping Review.JMIR research protocols · 2026Article
- Article
- The emotional involvement of physicians in the Oncology Intensive Care Unit: a phenomenological-hermeneutic study.Frontiers in psychology · 2024Article
- Evaluation of a Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Video Decision Aid for Pet Owners.Journal of veterinary emergency and critical care (San Antonio, Tex. : 2001)Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe purpose of this scoping review was to synthesise the effectiveness and acceptability of decision aids for critically ill patients and family members in the intensive care unit (ICU).
methodsA systematic search of four electronic databases and grey literature was undertaken to identify relevant studies on the application of decision aids in the ICU, without publication date restriction, through March 2023. The methodological framework proposed by Arksey and O'Malley was used to guide the scoping review.
resultsFourteen papers were ultimately included in this review. However, only nine decision aids were available, and it is noteworthy that many of these studies focused on the iterative development and testing of individual decision aids. Among the included studies, 92% (n=13) were developed in North America, with a primary focus on goals of care and life-sustaining treatments. The summary of the effect of decision aid application revealed that the most common indicators were the level of knowledge and code status, and some promising signals disappeared in randomised trials.
conclusionsThe complexity of treatment decisions in the ICU exceeds the current capabilities of existing decision aids. There is a clear gap in decision aids that are tailored to different cultural contexts, highlighting the need to expand the scope of their application. In addition, rigorous quality control is very important for randomised controlled trial, and indicators for assessing the effectiveness of decision aids need to be further clarified.
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.