Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42791516›Full record

ArticleBMC geriatrics2026

Older patients and intensive care: factors that influence patients decisions on life sustaining measures.

Adrian Rosada, Drin Ferizaj, Nils Lahmann, Frank Samuel Schaefer, Ursula Müller-Werdan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC geriatrics, 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

5 authors.

Adrian Rosada *Department of Geriatrics and Medical Gerontology, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany. adrian.rosada@charite.de.ORCID 0000-0002-8646-4185
Drin Ferizaj *Department of Geriatrics and Medical Gerontology, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Nils LahmannDepartment of Geriatrics and Medical Gerontology, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Frank Samuel SchaeferDepartment of Geriatrics and Medical Gerontology, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
Ursula Müller-WerdanDepartment of Geriatrics and Medical Gerontology, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPhysicians treating older patients are frequently unaware of their patients' personal attitudes towards life-sustaining measures like ventilation, resuscitation, feeding tubes, or ICU admission. In routine clinical practice, there is often little time for reflection prior to deciding in favor or against life sustaining measures in critical medical conditions. Although decisions for or against these measures should ideally be made jointly by the patient and the treating physician, factors like age, disease burden, social inclusion, and affective state may play an important role in the patient's motivation.

methodsData from 161 inpatients (mean age 82.0 years) on a geriatric ward were collected and analyzed. Patients were interviewed about their attitudes towards life-sustaining measures like ventilation, resuscitation, tube feeding, ICU admission, and dialysis. Four composite indices were formed by combining sign-aligned component variables: medical burden (age and Charlson Comorbidity Index), functional and cognitive impairment (Barthel Index, iADL, and MoCA), affective distress (Geriatric Depression Scale and Hamilton Depression Scale suicidality item), and social support (living situation, having children, and having friends). These indices with other covariates were then analyzed using a Bayesian Rasch item response model with latent regression.

resultsOverall, 14.3% refused all invasive life sustaining measures, whereas 33.8% wished to receive all of the measures listed above. Artificial nutrition was the most refused measure (refused by 53.4%), whereas ICU admission was the most commonly accepted measure (74.4%). Social support had no meaningful association with the decision to accept or refuse life-sustaining measures. Relevant predictors were primarily lower levels of affective distress, and secondarily better functional and cognitive performance and lower medical burden.

conclusionsEven among older patients, only a minority completely reject life-sustaining measures, even though their life expectancy is often significantly reduced. Patient's attitude towards life-sustaining measures appears to be related more strongly to affective state, functional performance, and medical burden than living situation or social inclusion. As the patient's emotional and functional state can certainly be influenced by medical treatment, practitioners should bear this in mind and, where appropriate, reassess their patients' attitude towards LSM once the aforementioned conditions have improved. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Registered with the clinical trial registry Deutsches Register Klinischer Studien.

Indexed as

Critical CareDecision MakingLife Support CareAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleHumansIntensive Care UnitsMaleAttitudesGeriatric patientsICU admissionLife-sustaining measuresVentilation

Identifiers

PMID42791516
PMCPMC13615634

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.