Observational studyChest2026
Evaluating the Association Between Patient Priorities and ICU Care Delivery in Adults Receiving Mechanical Ventilation.
Observational study in Chest, 2026. 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundUnderstanding how ICU treatments align with a patient's priorities is crucial to evaluating and improving critical care. Measuring this alignment is challenging, however, because patient priorities evolve over time and are not systematically documented in electronic health records (EHRs). RESEARCH QUESTION: To what extent is ICU care delivery associated with patient priorities, as reported in real time by their surrogate decision-makers? STUDY DESIGN AND
methodsWe conducted a secondary analysis of a prospective observational study of patients who were mechanically ventilated in an adult medical ICU. At study enrollment, surrogates were asked to categorize patients' treatment priorities as: (1) maximize survival; (2) middle ground (try to live as long as possible but with some treatment limitations); or (3) maximize comfort. Demographic characteristics, care delivery, and outcomes were abstracted from the EHR. To evaluate relationships, χ
resultsFor 393 eligible patients, 217 (55.2%) surrogates responded to the patient priorities questionnaire. The most frequently reported priority was middle ground (n = 105 [48.4%]), followed by maximize survival (n = 75 [34.6%]) and maximize comfort (n = 37 [17.1%]). Hospital mortality was similar across groups (35.1% maximize comfort, 34.3% middle ground, and 28.0% in maximize survival; P = .619), as were frequencies of tracheostomy placement, palliative care consultation, and, among decedents, use of life-sustaining therapies near death. A maximize comfort priority was associated with a shorter hospital length of stay in a linear regression model adjusted for age, race, and Charlson Comorbidity Index score (β = -0.43; 95% CI, -0.78 to -0.09; P < .014).
interpretationThis study did not find strong relationships between surrogate-reported treatment priorities and ICU care delivery. These findings underscore the need for ongoing efforts to achieve individualized, goal-concordant care for patients with critical illness.
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.