ReviewCureus2026
Clinical and Ethical Approaches to Medical Futility in End-of-Life Care: A Scoping Review.
Review in Cureus, 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Medical futility (MF) remains a complex and debated concept in clinical practice, particularly among patients with terminal illness or limited life expectancy, largely due to inconsistencies in its definition and variability in its application, which complicate clinical decision-making. A scoping review was conducted following the methodologies proposed by Arksey, Levac, the Joanna Briggs Institute, and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) guidelines to analyze evidence on therapeutic futility in terminally ill adults and the clinical, ethical, and prognostic criteria influencing end-of-life decision-making. A total of 36 published studies were included. Regarding study design, retrospective observational studies predominated (12/36, 33.3%), followed by qualitative studies (9/36, 25.0%), cross-sectional studies (6/36, 16.7%), and, to a lesser extent, prospective or cohort studies (3/36, 8.3%), mixed-methods or case-control studies (2/36, 5.6%), and one case report (1/36, 2.8%). Most studies focused on patients (21/36, 58.3%), primarily in critical care settings or among individuals with advanced disease. A considerable proportion exclusively evaluated healthcare professionals (10/36, 27.8%). Regarding the clinical context, ICUs represented the predominant clinical setting, including general, oncological, surgical, neurological, and medical intensive care units. Other settings included non-critical hospital environments (5/36, 13.9%), oncology-specific settings (3/36, 8.3%), prehospital or emergency care settings (2/36, 5.6%), and additional areas, such as psychiatry, bioethics, or palliative care (3/36, 8.3%). The most frequently identified criterion for MF was the use of treatments without expected clinical benefit (10/36, 27.8%). Ethical and clinical dimensions were addressed across all included studies, with a predominance of multidimensional approaches integrating principles, such as autonomy, beneficence, and justice. Small sample sizes and single-center designs predominated, particularly among qualitative and retrospective studies. MF is a complex and multidimensional concept influenced by clinical, ethical, and sociocultural factors. The heterogeneity in its definition and application complicates the standardization of decision-making, particularly in settings such as ICUs.
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.