ReviewFrontiers in medicine2026
The effect of shared decision-making for critically ill patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in Frontiers in medicine, 2026. 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.
- Modified Decisional Conflict Scale for Primary Caregivers in Long-Term Care Facilities: Psychometric Validation Using Structural Equation Modeling.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This systematic review and meta-analysis assessed the impact of shared decision-making on critically ill patients, focusing on outcomes such as mortality, intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital length of stay (LOS), and mental health symptoms in patients and their surrogates. Methods: Following PRISMA guidelines, we searched PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases through March 2025 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing shared decision-making interventions in critically ill patients or surrogates. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane tool, and data synthesis employed fixed or random-effects models based on heterogeneity. Results: Fifteen RCTs (2003-2025) involving 3,678 ICU patients and 2,777 surrogates were analyzed. Shared decision-making showed no significant association with all-cause mortality [risk ratio (RR) 1.05, 95% CI = 0.97-1.15]. Data analysis shows that the ICU LOS for deceased patients have shortened [standardized mean difference (SMD) = -0.15, 95% CI = -0.27 to -0.02, Conclusion: Shared decision-making may reduce ICU LOS for critically ill patients who ultimately die, without influencing mortality or overall hospitalization duration. Culturally tailored shared decision-making interventions are needed to address the heterogeneous needs of patients and surrogates across diverse populations.
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.