Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 261

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 21 of the 21 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Resuscitation Preferences Among Patients With Severe Congestive Heart Failure: Results From the SUPPORT Project

Open access
Krumholz, Harlan M., Phillips, Russell S., Hamel, Mary Beth, Teno, Joan M., Bellamy, Paul, Broste, Steven K., Califf, Robert M., Vidaillet, Humberto, Davis, Roger B., Muhlbaier, Lawrence H., Connors, Alfred F., Lynn, Joanne, Goldman, Lee·1998·Circulation
DOI 10.1161/01.cir.98.7.648
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Background —We sought to describe the resuscitation preferences of patients hospitalized with an exacerbation of severe congestive heart failure, perceptions of those preferences by their physicians, and the stability of the preferences. Methods and Results —Of 936 patients in this study, 215 (23%) explicitly stated that they did not want to be resuscitated. Significant correlates of not wanting to be resuscitated included older age, perception of a worse prognosis, poorer functional status, and higher income. The physician’s perception of the patient’s preference disagreed with the patient’s actual preference in 24% of the cases overall. Only 25% of the patients reported discussing resuscitation preferences with their physician, but discussion of preferences was not significantly associated with higher agreement between the patient and physician. Of the 600 patients who responded to the resuscitation question again 2 months later, 19% had changed their preferences, including 14% of those who initially wanted resuscitation (69 of 480) and 40% of those who initially did not (48 of 120). The physician’s perception of the patient’s hospital resuscitation preference was correct for 84% of patients who had a stable preference and 68% of those who did not. Conclusions —Almost one quarter of patients hospitalized with severe heart failure expressed a preference not to be resuscitated. The physician’s perception of the patient’s preference was not accurate in about one quarter of the cases, but communication was not associated with greater agreement between the patient and the physician. A substantial proportion of patients who did not want to be resuscitated changed their minds within 2 months of discharge.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1161/01.cir.98.7.648

Cites

21 of 21 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Cites

Show all 21 references

Cited by

See all 261

Metadata

Authors
Krumholz, H. M., Phillips, R. S., Hamel, M. B., Teno, J. M., Bellamy, P., Broste, S. K., Califf, R. M., Vidaillet, H., Davis, R. B., Muhlbaier, L. H., Connors, A. F., Lynn, J., & Goldman, L.
Venue
Circulation
Publisher
Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
Published
1998-08-18
Volume
98
Issue
7
Pages
648-655
ISSN
  • 0009-7322 (ISSN-L)
  • 1524-4539
DOI
10.1161/01.cir.98.7.648
OpenAlex
W2051132243
Cited by
261
References
21
FWCI
11.89
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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: Resuscitation Preferences Among Patients With Severe Congestive Heart Failure: Results From the SUPPORT Project. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1161/01.cir.98.7.648
The paper
Krumholz, H. M., Phillips, R. S., Hamel, M. B., Teno, J. M., Bellamy, P., Broste, S. K., Califf, R. M., Vidaillet, H., Davis, R. B., Muhlbaier, L. H., Connors, A. F., Lynn, J., & Goldman, L. (1998). Resuscitation Preferences Among Patients With Severe Congestive Heart Failure: Results From the SUPPORT Project. Circulation. https://doi.org/10.1161/01.cir.98.7.648

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.