ArticlePloS one2025
Goals of care discussions among critically Ill patients on vasopressor treatment.
Article in PloS one, 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
backgroundGoals of care (GOC) discussions are essential for aligning medical management with the values of critically ill patients, particularly those requiring vasopressors, such as dopamine. To evaluate GOC discussions in terms of prevalence, factors associated with documentation, and impact on survival among critically ill patients requiring vasopressors for hemodynamic support.
methodsWe conducted a retrospective cohort study at a tertiary healthcare facility in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, focusing on patients admitted to intensive care units (ICUs) and internal medicine (IM) wards. The study included adult in patients who received dopamine during their hospital stay. Factors associated with GOC documentation were identified using logistic regression analysis. The 30-day and 1-year survival rates according to GOC discussions were analyzed using Kaplan-Meier survival curves, which were compared using the log-rank test.
resultsOf 301 patients, 56.8% were men and 64.8% were aged ≥60 years. GOC discussions were documented in 61.8% of patients and were more frequent among older patients (≥60 years) than among younger patients (73.1% vs. 51.3%, p < 0.001) and in those with higher APACHE II scores (median 21.0 vs. 18.0, p = 0.001). Multivariable analysis identified age ≥ 60 years as independent precipitating factor of GOC discussions (odds ratio 2.41, 95% confidence interval 1.34-4.32, p = 0.003). The study found significantly lower survival rates at both 30 days and 1 year among patients who had documented GOC discussions.
conclusionsGOCs were more prevalent among critically ill older patients. The study found significantly higher mortality rates at both 30 days and 1 year among patients who had documented GOC discussions. These findings highlight the need for institutional strategies to integrate GOC discussions into routine care and address their potential implications on patient outcomes.
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.