The DOI matches its Crossref record.
The Accuracy of Surrogate Decision Makers: A Systematic Review
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Clinicians currently rely on patient-designated and next-of-kin surrogates to make end-of-life treatment decisions for incapacitated patients. Surrogates are instructed to use the substituted judgment standard, which directs them to make the treatment decision that the patient would have made if he or she were capacitated. However, commentators have questioned the accuracy with which surrogates predict patients' treatment preferences. METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted using PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and manuscript references, to identify published studies that provide empirical data on how accurately surrogates predict patients' treatment preferences and on the efficacy of commonly proposed methods to improve surrogate accuracy. Two of us (D.I.S. and D.W.) reviewed all articles and extracted data on the hypothetical scenarios used to assess surrogate accuracy and the percentage of agreement between patients and surrogates. RESULTS: The search identified 16 eligible studies, involving 151 hypothetical scenarios and 2595 surrogate-patient pairs, which collectively analyzed 19 526 patient-surrogate paired responses. Overall, surrogates predicted patients' treatment preferences with 68% accuracy. Neither patient designation of surrogates nor prior discussion of patients' treatment preferences improved surrogates' predictive accuracy. CONCLUSIONS: Patient-designated and next-of-kin surrogates incorrectly predict patients' end-of-life treatment preferences in one third of cases. These data undermine the claim that reliance on surrogates is justified by their ability to predict incapacitated patients' treatment preferences. Future studies should assess whether other mechanisms might predict patients' end-of-life treatment preferences more accurately. Also, they should assess whether reliance on patient-designated and next-of-kin surrogates offers patients and/or their families benefits that are independent of the accuracy of surrogates' decisions.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Family-Centered Advance Care Planning for Teens With Cancer
Lyon, M. E., Jacobs, S., Briggs, L., Cheng, Y. I., & Wang, J. (2013) · JAMA Pediatrics · doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2013.943 · Cited by 223
A systematic review of reasons for gatekeeping in palliative care research
Kars, M. C., van Thiel, G. J., van der Graaf, R., Moors, M., de Graeff, A., & van Delden, J. J. (2016) · Palliative Medicine · doi:10.1177/0269216315616759 · Cited by 205
Preconditions for successful advance care planning in nursing homes: A systematic review.
Gilissen, J., Pivodic, L., Smets, T., Gastmans, C., Vander Stichele, R., Deliens, L., & Van den Block, L. (2017) · International Journal of Nursing Studies · doi:10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2016.12.003 · Cited by 156
Lord, K., Livingston, G., & Cooper, C. (2015) · International Psychogeriatrics · doi:10.1017/s1041610215000411 · Cited by 141
Advance care planning in dementia: recommendations for healthcare professionals
Harrison Dening, K., Sampson, E. L., & De Vries, K. (2019) · Palliative Care: Research and Treatment · doi:10.1177/1178224219826579 · Cited by 114
Metadata
- Authors
- Shalowitz, D. I., Garrett-Mayer, E., & Wendler, D.
- Venue
- Archives of Internal Medicine
- Publisher
- American Medical Association (AMA)
- Published
- 2006-03-13
- Volume
- 166
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 493
- ISSN
- 0003-9926 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2005763353
- Cited by
- 980
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 32.32
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The Accuracy of Surrogate Decision Makers: A Systematic Review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/archinte.166.5.493
- The paper
- Shalowitz, D. I., Garrett-Mayer, E., & Wendler, D. (2006). The Accuracy of Surrogate Decision Makers: A Systematic Review. Archives of Internal Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1001/archinte.166.5.493
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.