ArticleInnere Medizin (Heidelberg, Germany)2024
[Ethical boundary decisions in intensive care medicine].
Article in Innere Medizin (Heidelberg, Germany), 2024. 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.
- [Interprofessional collaboration in internal medicine : Developments between health professions in German language publications].Innere Medizin (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2026Review
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
backgroundEthical decision-making is a cornerstone of intensive care and emergency medicine. In acute scenarios, clinicians often face rapid, high-stakes decisions concerning life and death, made more challenging by time constraints and incomplete information. These decisions are further complicated by economic constraints, limited resources, and evolving technological capabilities. QUESTION: What decision-making aids and factors can be employed in ethical borderline cases within intensive care medicine?
resultsFundamental ethical principles such as patient autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, and justice form the basis for medical treatment decisions. Evaluating the patient's will through advanced directives or proxy consensus is crucial, although advanced directives can be ambiguous. Assessing quality of life is increasingly important, with instruments such as the Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) being utilized. For older patients, a holistic approach is recommended, focusing on overall health rather than chronological age. In patients with advanced underlying diseases, a multidisciplinary dialogue is essential. DISCUSSION: Decision-making in intensive care medicine requires careful consideration of medical, ethical, and individual factors. Despite advances in artificial intelligence and prognostic models, human judgment remains crucial. During periods of resource scarcity, ethically sound triage protocols are required. The challenge lies in applying these principles and factors in clinical practice while respecting the individuality of each patient.
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.