ArticleJAMA network open2024
Shared Decision-Making Communication and Prognostic Misunderstanding in the ICU.
Article in JAMA network open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Physician-revised AI-generated drafts are associated with higher ratings of written explanations in end-of-life care in the intensive care unit: a scenario-based single-center cross-sectional study.Journal of intensive care · 2026Article
- Sliding doors at the bedside: conditional outcomes and moral judgments in end-of-life care.Critical care (London, England) · 2026Review
- One voice at the bedside: aligning goals of care and prognostic communication in trauma and acute care surgery.Trauma surgery & acute care open · 2026Article
- Clinician perspectives on utilizing time-limited trials among patients with an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: A qualitative study.Resuscitation plus · 2026Article
- The effect of shared decision-making for critically ill patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in medicine · 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
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Importance: Surrogate misunderstanding of patient survival prognosis in the intensive care unit (ICU) is associated with poor patient and surrogate outcomes. Shared decision-making (SDM) may reduce misunderstanding. Objective: To evaluate the association between SDM-aligned communication and prognostic misunderstanding. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study was conducted at 13 medical and surgical ICUs at 5 hospitals in North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Washington between December 2012 and January 2017. Participants were surrogates of adult patients receiving prolonged mechanical ventilation and ICU physicians. Analysis was performed May to November 2023. Exposure: SDM-aligned communication during ICU family meetings, defined as the presence of high-quality serious illness communication behaviors aligned with SDM principles. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was postmeeting surrogate prognostic misunderstanding, defined as the absolute difference between the physician's estimate of survival prognosis and the surrogate's perception of that estimate (range, 0-100 percentage points). The secondary outcome was postmeeting physician misunderstanding, defined as the absolute difference between a surrogate's estimate of survival prognosis and the physician's perception of that estimate (range, 0-100 percentage points). Prognostic misunderstanding of 20 percentage points or greater was considered clinically significant as in prior work. Results: Of 137 surrogates, most were female (102 [74.5%]), and there were 22 (16.1%) Black surrogates, 107 (78.1%) White surrogates, and 8 surrogates (5.8%) with other race and ethnicity. Of 100 physicians, most were male (64 [64.0%]), with 11 (11.0%) Asian physicians, 4 (4.0%) Black physicians, and 75 (75.0%) White physicians. Median (IQR) surrogate prognostic misunderstanding declined significantly after family meetings (before: 22.0 [10.0 to 40.0] percentage points; after: 15.0 [5.0 to 34.0] percentage points; P = .002), but there was no significant change in median (IQR) physician prognostic misunderstanding (before: 12.0 [5.0 to 30.0] percentage points; after: 15.0 [5.0 to 29.0] percentage points; P = .99). In adjusted analyses, SDM-aligned communication was not associated with prognostic misunderstanding among surrogates or physicians (surrogates: β = -0.74; 95% CI, -1.81 to 0.32; P = .17; physicians: β = -0.51; 95% CI, -1.63 to 0.62; P = .38). In a prespecified subgroup analysis of 78 surrogates (56.9%) with clinically significant premeeting prognostic misunderstanding, SDM-aligned communication was associated with reduced surrogate postmeeting prognostic misunderstanding (β = -1.71; 95% CI, -3.09 to -0.34; P = .01). Conclusions and Relevance: In this retrospective cohort study, SDM-aligned communication was not associated with changes in prognostic misunderstanding for all surrogates or physicians, but it was associated with reduced prognostic misunderstanding among surrogates with clinically significant misunderstanding at baseline.
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.