SynthesisPalliative & supportive care2026
Definitional confusion in nurses' and physicians' attitudes toward euthanasia in India: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Palliative & supportive care, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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.
- Definitional confusion in nurses' and physicians' attitudes toward euthanasia in India: A systematic review and meta-analysis - CORRIGENDUM.Palliative & supportive care · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionIn India, the term OBJECTIVES AND SIGNIFICANCE OF THE
resultsThis systematic review and meta-analysis examines how euthanasia has been defined and operationalized in quantitative studies of Indian physicians' and nurses' attitudes, and estimates the prevalence of approval when euthanasia is defined narrowly.
methodsFollowing PRISMA 2020 guidelines, searches were conducted in PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and CINAHL for studies published from 2010 onward. Two investigators independently screened studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT). Studies were included in the meta-analysis only if they reported attitudes toward euthanasia as narrowly defined.
resultsNine studies met inclusion criteria for the systematic review. Definitions of euthanasia varied considerably, and several studies combined attitudes toward treatment withdrawal with attitudes toward the administration of lethal drugs. Four studies reporting on 519 nurses and physicians provided data suitable for meta-analysis. Approval of euthanasia, defined as the intentional administration of lethal drugs, ranged from 12% to 20%, with a pooled prevalence of 16% (95% confidence interval: 0.13-0.19). This prevalence is notably lower than in earlier reports on Indian healthcare professionals' attitudes.
conclusionDefinitional inconsistency substantially affects reported attitudes toward euthanasia in Indian research. When euthanasia is defined narrowly, approval among healthcare professionals is low and consistent across studies. These findings highlight the need for conceptual clarity in future research to support accurate interpretation of empirical data and to strengthen the contribution of studies on ethical attitudes to ethical and palliative care scholarship.
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.