Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40996760›Full record

Trial reportJAMA network open2025

Checklist-Guided Code Status Discussions in Patients for Whom Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Is Considered Futile: An Analysis of a Randomized Clinical Trial.

Armon Arpagaus, Leta Arpagaus, Christoph Becker, Sebastian Gross, Flavio Gössi, Benjamin Bissmann, Samuel Kaspar Zumbrunn, Philipp Schuetz, Jörg D Leuppi, Drahomir Aujesky and 4 more

Registry-linked trialAbstract readRandomized Controlled TrialMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Trial report in JAMA network open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03872154 (Checklist-guided Shared Decision-making for Code Status Discussions in Medical Inpatients. A Cluster-randomized Multicenter Trial), which is not on this map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT03872154 nacompletednot on this map

Checklist-guided Shared Decision-making for Code Status Discussions in Medical Inpatients. A Cluster-randomized Multicenter Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity Hospital, Basel, SwitzerlandRan2019 to 2023Enrolled2,663ConditionsCode Status Discussions With Medical In-patientsArmsChecklist-guided shared decision-making
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Perioperative Code Status Discussions in Surgical Practice: Results from a National Survey Among Swiss Surgeons.Annals of surgery open : perspectives of surgical history, education, and clinical approaches · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors.

Armon ArpagausDivision of Medical Communication/Psychosomatic Medicine, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Leta ArpagausDivision of Medical Communication/Psychosomatic Medicine, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Christoph BeckerDivision of Medical Communication/Psychosomatic Medicine, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Sebastian GrossDivision of Medical Communication/Psychosomatic Medicine, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Flavio GössiDivision of Medical Communication/Psychosomatic Medicine, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Benjamin BissmannDivision of Medical Communication/Psychosomatic Medicine, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Samuel Kaspar ZumbrunnDivision of Medical Communication/Psychosomatic Medicine, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Philipp SchuetzFaculty of Medicine, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Jörg D LeuppiFaculty of Medicine, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Drahomir AujeskyDepartment of General Internal Medicine, Inselspital, Bern University Hospital, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Balthasar HugDivision of Internal Medicine, Cantonal Hospital Lucerne, Lucerne, Switzerland.
Thomas PetersDivision of Internal Medicine, St Claraspital AG, Basel, Switzerland.
Stefano BassettiDivision of Internal Medicine, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Sabina HunzikerDivision of Medical Communication/Psychosomatic Medicine, University Hospital Basel, Basel, Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Code status discussions represent a fundamental aspect of advanced care planning and impose major challenges for clinicians in patients for whom cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is considered futile. Objective: To investigate the effect of a structured communication approach in code status discussions on decisions regarding code status and various quality-of-care measures for patients in whom resuscitation is considered futile. Design, Setting, and Participants: The GUIDE trial is a multicenter randomized clinical trial, which included patients deemed futile regarding CPR measures. The study was conducted between June 1, 2019, and April 30, 2023, in medical inpatients wards across 6 Swiss teaching hospitals. Medical inpatients for whom CPR measures were considered futile based on a prearrest Good Outcome Following Attempted Resuscitation score of 14 or higher or a Clinical Frailty Scale score of 7 or higher were eligible. Patients with cognitive or physical condition hindering meaningful conversation were excluded. Main Outcomes and Measures: Main outcomes included patients' code status decisions as well as preference for mechanical ventilatory assistance and intensive care unit admission. Additional outcomes assessed patients' psychological burden after the discussion measured by the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory and Hospital Anxiety and Depression scale and physicians' perception regarding the discussions. Results: A total of 177 patients (mean [SD] age, 76.3 [12.0] years; 90 [51%] female) were studied. Overall, the rate of do-not-resuscitate orders was 85%. No significant difference was observed between groups (checklist vs usual care group, 79 of 89 [89%] vs 72 of 88 [82%]; odds ratio, 1.76; 95% CI, 0.75-4.12; P = .20). However, patients in the checklist group were less likely to prefer intensive care unit admission compared with usual care (31 of 89 [36%] vs 44 of 88 [52%]; odds ratio, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.29-0.99; P = .046). Physicians perceived code status discussions using the checklist less challenging (mean [SD], 3.5 [2.8] vs 4.7 [2.8]; difference, -1.23; 95% CI, -2.1 to -0.35; P = .006). There was no significant difference in patients' psychological reaction to code status discussions measured by State-Trait Anxiety Inventory and Hospital Anxiety and Depression scale. Conclusions and Relevance: This analysis of a randomized clinical trial found that checklist-guided code status discussions in patients for whom CPR was considered futile reduced their preference for intensive care unit admission while alleviating physicians' challenges during code status discussions without adversely affecting patients' psychosocial burden. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03872154.

Indexed as

Advance Care PlanningCardiopulmonary ResuscitationChecklistMedical FutilityResuscitation OrdersAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedSwitzerland

Identifiers

PMID40996760
PMCPMC12464790

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.