ArticleResuscitation plus2023
To withhold resuscitation - The Swedish system's rules and challenges.
Article in Resuscitation plus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of this article is to describe current Swedish legalisation, clinical practice and future perspectives on the medical ethical decision "Do-Not-Attempt-Cardio-Pulmonary-Resuscitation" (DNACPR) in relation to prevent futile resuscitation of in-hospital cardiac arrests. Sweden has about 2200 in-hospital cardiac arrests yearly, with an overall 30-day survival ratio of 35%. This population is highly selected, although the frequency of DNACPR orders for hospitalized patients is unknown, resuscitation is initiated in only 6-13% of patients dying in Swedish hospitals. According to Swedish law and although shared decision making is sought, the physician is the ultimate decision-maker and consultation with the patient, her relatives and another licenced health care practitioner is mandatory. According to studies, these consultations is documented in only about 10% of the decisions. Clinicians lack tools to assess risk of IHCA, tools to predict outcome and we are not good at guessing patients own will. Future directives for clinical practice need to address difficulties for physicians in making decisions as well as the timing of decisions. We conclude that the principles in Swedish law needs to be fulfilled by a more systematic approach to documentation and planning of meetings between patients, relatives and colleagues.
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.