ArticleMissouri medicine
Misleading at Best: A Critical Appraisal of "Nurse-Physician Substitution in Hospital Settings".
Article in Missouri medicine. 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: A recent Cochrane review concluded that nurse-led care results in little to no difference in outcomes compared with physician-led care in hospital settings. These findings have been widely interpreted as evidence supporting substitution of nurses for physicians. Objective: To evaluate the studies included in the Cochrane review and determine whether the evidence supports independent nurse substitution for physicians in hospital settings. Methods: We conducted a structured analysis of the 82 randomized controlled trials included in the review, examining clinical setting, patient acuity, level of supervision, and type of intervention. Results: Only 10 of 82 studies evaluated inpatient hospital care, all involving stable or selected patient populations within physician-led or supervised systems. An additional 11 studies addressed low-acuity emergency or preoperative settings. The remaining majority consisted of outpatient, protocol-driven care for stable conditions, often with explicit physician oversight. No study evaluated independent nurse-led management of hospitalized patients or intensive care settings. Many studies assessed task-specific interventions, additional services, or structured follow-up rather than equivalent clinical roles. Conclusion: The evidence cited does not support independent substitution of nurses for physicians in hospital settings. Instead, it supports the effectiveness of protocolized, delegated care within physician-led teams. While addressing physician workforce shortages is important, maintaining quality and safety requires preserving physician-led models of care.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42781686PMC13600731What 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.