Trial reportJournal of general internal medicine2025
Patient Preferences for Code Status Discussions: A Randomized Trial of Information- vs. Patient Values-Centered Frameworks.
Trial report in Journal of general internal medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundHelping patients make decisions about their preferences for cardiopulmonary resuscitation (i.e., code status) is an important way to respect patient autonomy in the hospital. There is a gap in understanding which framework of discussion patients prefer for this decision-making.
objectiveTo determine which of two frameworks to code status discussions-information-centered or patient values-centered-make patients feel more heard and understood about their preferences regarding cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR).
designProspective, randomized study comparing two different frameworks to CPR discussion.
participantsWe enrolled adult patients with one or more serious illnesses who were recently discharged from an urban, tertiary care, academic medical center in Boston, MA.
interventionsSubjects were randomized to receive either the information-centered framework, in which their likelihood of recovery following CPR was shared, or the patient values-centered framework, in which their personal values were elicited and used to make a recommendation. MAIN MEASURES: Subject-reported heard and understood rating with regard to their preferences for CPR. KEY
resultsOf the 46 subjects enrolled, 25 (54.3%) were male, 42 (91.3%) were White, and 3 (6.5%) were Black. Mean age was 66.4 ± 11.8 years. Subjects reported feeling more "heard and understood" about their preferences for CPR with the patient values-centered framework compared with after the information-centered framework (p = 0.033). When asked, 89% of subjects "definitely" or "probably" wanted to hear their doctor's personalized recommendation about CPR (p < 0.001).
conclusionPatients, in line with palliative care experts, largely support a patient values-centered framework to CPR, including a recommendation made by the clinician based on the patient's expressed values.
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.