ArticleCritical care explorations2025
Outcome Predictions at Two Time Points among Surrogates and Physicians of Mechanically Ventilated Patients.
Article in Critical care explorations, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe decisions surrogates and physicians make for incapacitated critically ill patients depend in part on their expectations for patient recovery. We sought to determine whether the accuracy of surrogate and physician outcome predictions made during the ICU stay improves over time.
designSurvey study.
settingAcademic Medical Center. SUBJECTS: Surrogates and physicians of 100 mechanically ventilated patients from March 2018 to April 2019.
interventionsAt the end of the first week of mechanical ventilation and 1 week later, participants indicated on visual analog scales (0-100%) expectations that the patient would require mechanical ventilation in 1 month, require artificial nutrition in 1 month, be alive in 3 months, and be living at home in 3 months. Patient status was determined at 1 and 3 months. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN
resultsArea under the receiver operating characteristic curves (AUROCs) were determined for each outcome, at each time point. Patients who died within the first month were considered to require mechanical ventilation and artificial nutrition in the primary analysis. AUROCs for initial surrogate predictions were 0.61 (95% CI, 0.50-0.72) for mechanical ventilation, 0.67 (95% CI, 0.56-0.78) for artificial nutrition, 0.66 (95% CI, 0.55-0.7) for survival, and 0.61 (95% CI, 0.50-0.73) for living at home. AUROCs for initial physician predictions were 0.60 (95% CI, 0.49-0.71) for mechanical ventilation, 0.72 (95% CI, 0.61-0.0.83) for artificial nutrition, 0.69 (95% CI, 0.59-0.80) for survival, and 0.76 (95% CI, 0.66-0.85) for living at home. Average expectations among surrogates and physicians were highly stable over time; adjustments made to expectations did not result in more accurate predictions for the measured outcomes (p > 0.05).
conclusionsAmong surrogates and physicians of patients who were mechanically ventilated for 1 week, outcome predictions were better than would be expected by chance and not significantly improved 1 week later.
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.