ArticleHealth science reports2025
Medical Professionals' Treatment Decisions for Critical Patients With Ambiguous Treatment Wishes: A Cross-Sectional Study.
Article in Health science reports, 2025. 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.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Aims: Many patients do not want life-prolonging treatments at critical stages of their illnesses, and are able to communicate their wishes to their families or surrogates. However, few among them have clarity on what such life-prolonging treatments mean or entail. This study clarifies differences in the perspectives of medical professionals based on levels of expertise with respect to treatment decisions for intensive care unit (ICU) patients whose wishes for end-of-life care are ambiguous. Methods: The cross-sectional study included intensivists, surgeons, and ICU nurses working in 171 Japanese hospitals with ICUs. A total of 837 participants were mailed questionnaires which included questions on the current status and approaches to decision-making with end-of-life care for ICU patients. Additionally, a simulated case study was conducted to investigate the decision-making process for treating patients with uncertain survival rates. Results: Responses were obtained from 489 participants from 151 hospitals. More than half of the intensivists and ICU nurses reported that family members' requests were respected when the patient had ambiguous treatment preferences. Participants considered the patients' survival probability when deciding to perform emergency surgery, with nurses having significantly higher thresholds than intensivists and surgeons (intensivists: 20.8 ± 20.6, surgeons: 26.6 ± 25.2, ICU nurses: 36.4 ± 26.4; Conclusions: Family preferences take precedence over patient preferences when deciding on end-of-life treatments for ICU patients. Shared decision-making should be promoted to correctly share patients' end-of-life medical wishes with surrogate decision-makers and medical practitioners.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.