Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42781686›Full record

ArticleMissouri medicine

Misleading at Best: A Critical Appraisal of "Nurse-Physician Substitution in Hospital Settings".

Rebekah Bernard, Phillip Shaffer

Abstract readEditorial
In one paragraph

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.

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

2 authors.

Rebekah BernardPractices at Gulf Coast Direct Primary Care in Fort Myers, Florida, USA.
Phillip ShafferBoard Certified Radiologist, in Aiken, South Carolina, USA, and Board Member of the national Physicians for Patients Protection, Massapequa Park, New York, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

PhysiciansHospitalsHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicTask Shiftinghospital carenurse practitionerPhysician-led carescope of practiceteam-based care

Identifiers

PMID42781686
PMCPMC13600731

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.