Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42670598›Full record

ArticleJournal of evaluation in clinical practice2026

Phenomenology of a Biographical Disruption: Delirium in the Critically Ill Patient.

A Canabal-Berlanga, C Alvargonzález, B Abad, E Rosas

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of evaluation in clinical practice, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

4 authors.

A Canabal-BerlangaHospital Universitario de la Princesa, Madrid, Spain.ORCID 0000-0001-7021-3456
C AlvargonzálezHospital Universitario de la Princesa, Madrid, Spain.ORCID 0009-0001-3680-7055
B AbadHospital Universitario de la Princesa, Madrid, Spain.ORCID 0009-0005-1453-1720
E RosasHospital Universitario de la Princesa, Madrid, Spain.ORCID 0000-0001-5603-7695

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

rationaleDelirium in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) is an acute neurocognitive syndrome affecting up to 80% of patients on mechanical ventilation. While traditionally defined by biomedical criteria (DSM-5), these metrics often overlook the profound ontological rupture and subjective alienation experienced by the patient. AIMS AND

objectivesThis study aims to integrate clinical evidence with phenomenological reflection to evaluate how delirium alters patient identity and to define the resulting ethical responsibilities for the clinical team.

methodAn interdisciplinary conceptual analysis was conducted, merging pathophysiological data and clinical meta-analyses with philosophical frameworks, including the phenomenology of perception, narrative identity and the ethics of vulnerability.

resultsDelirium suspends the 'intentional arc', leading to a collapse of the lived world, fragmented temporality and distorted otherness. Subphenotypes like hypoactive delirium often result in 'epistemic injustice' by silencing the patient's subjective testimony. Post-Intensive Care Syndrome (PICS) is identified as a 'biographical disruption' and a wound to selfhood.

conclusionClinical evaluation must transcend pathophysiology to include 'narrative competence', enabling the reconstruction of the patient's fractured history. Bioethics should shift from abstract rational autonomy toward a model of 'relational autonomy' grounded in vulnerability.

Indexed as

Critical IllnessDeliriumCritical CareHumansIntensive Care UnitsRespiration, Artificialbioethicsdeliriumintensive care unitsmedicalnarrative medicinepatient outcome assessmentphilosophy

Identifiers

PMID42670598
PMCPMC13527590

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.