Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38855268›Full record

ReviewWorld journal of critical care medicine2024

Ten misconceptions regarding decision-making in critical care.

Tara Ramaswamy, Jamie L Sparling, Marvin G Chang, Edward A Bittner

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in World journal of critical care medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Decisions, outcomes, and learning from what didn't go wrong.Journal of critical care medicine (Universitatea de Medicina si Farmacie din Targu-Mures) · 2026
    Article
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

4 authors.

Tara RamaswamyDepartment of Anesthesiology, Perioperative and Pain Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, CA 94305, United States.
Jamie L SparlingDepartment of Anesthesia, Critical Care and Pain Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02114, United States.
Marvin G ChangDepartment of Anesthesia, Critical Care and Pain Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02114, United States.
Edward A BittnerDepartment of Anesthesia, Critical Care and Pain Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02114, United States. ebittner@mgh.harvard.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Diagnostic errors are prevalent in critical care practice and are associated with patient harm and costs for providers and the healthcare system. Patient complexity, illness severity, and the urgency in initiating proper treatment all contribute to decision-making errors. Clinician-related factors such as fatigue, cognitive overload, and inexperience further interfere with effective decision-making. Cognitive science has provided insight into the clinical decision-making process that can be used to reduce error. This evidence-based review discusses ten common misconceptions regarding critical care decision-making. By understanding how practitioners make clinical decisions and examining how errors occur, strategies may be developed and implemented to decrease errors in Decision-making and improve patient outcomes.

Indexed as

Clinical reasoningCognitive biasCritical careDebiasing strategies decision makingDiagnostic errorDiagnostic reasoningHeuristicsMedical knowledgePatient safety

Identifiers

PMID38855268
PMCPMC11155500

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.