ArticleWorld journal of surgery2025
A Scoping Review on Goals of Care Discussions in Surgery: How Are We Doing and How Can We Do Better?
Article in World journal of surgery, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- A Scoping Review on Goals of Care Discussions in Surgery: How Are We Doing and How Can We Do Better?World journal of surgery · 2025Article
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
backgroundDiscussing GOC is essential to ensuring that patients' treatment recommendations and care plans are aligned with their preferences, priorities, and values. This review aims to characterize the existing literature on the quality, practices, and frameworks of goals of care (GOC) discussions in surgery to identify gaps and propose strategies for improvement.
methodsMEDLINE, MEDLINE In-Process/ePubs, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Web of Science, Scopus, and ClinicalTrials.Gov were searched using terms related to GOC, surgery, and best practices or education. The search strategy was run from inception to July 29, 2022. Studies regarding the quality of GOC discussions in surgery were included.
resultsThe search identified 14,254 articles from which 37 were included for review. Key findings included (1) the reactive nature of GOC discussions and initiating conversations in response to acute health changes, (2) ambiguity around patient autonomy and the surgeon's duty to prioritize surgical treatment, (3) surgeons as curators of information, and (4) tendency of surgeons to provide a set of standard treatment pathways and determine specific care decisions rather than establish understanding of patients' long-term goals.
conclusionFurther research is needed to determine best practices for caregiver and next-of-kin involvement and expand the diversity of reported experiences to include patients from diverse ethnic backgrounds and genders and individuals from rural and lower-resource communities. Findings from this review have important implications for improving GOC conversations to ensure they support patient-centered care.
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.