ArticleResuscitation plus2025
Physicians' opinion of patients' CPR decision: Secondary analysis from a pilot RCT.
Article in Resuscitation plus, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: While patients in the United States generally have final say in their code status, discussion with their physician plays an important role in decision-making. However, physicians do not discuss code status with every patient, and do not consistently mention patients' prognosis following cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). Understanding how physicians perceive patients' CPR decisions is prerequisite to improving code status discussions. Methods: We report a planned secondary analysis from a prospective randomized controlled trial of 102 English-speaking adults aged ≥65 evaluating whether "Allow Natural Death" was preferred to "Do Not Resuscitate" as the "no code" option in code status discussions. We measured physician agreement/disagreement with patient code status decisions and the correlation with objective outcome measures. Two clinically validated instruments-measuring likelihood of surviving resuscitation (Good Outcomes Following Attempted Resuscitations (GO-FAR)) and morbidity level/1- and 10-year mortality (Charlson Comorbidity Index (CCI))-were calculated for each participant. Results: Physicians agreed with patients' code status decisions 88.3% of the time. Physician agreement with code status was not correlated with GO-FAR or CCI scores. GO-FAR and CCI scores do not always align, indicating that illness severity and CPR outcome are not directly linked. Conclusions: This study highlights that while physicians tend to agree with patient's code status, their decisions do not align with data from clinically validated predictors of coding success or illness severity/mortality prediction. Further research is required as to how physicians perceive whether attempting CPR is appropriate or not.
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.