Cited by 250Palliative Care and End-of-Life IssuesPalliative and Oncologic CareEthics and bioethics in healthcare

Seeking worldwide professional consensus on the principles of end-of-life care for the critically ill. The Consensus for Worldwide End-of-Life Practice for Patients in Intensive Care Units (WELPICUS) study

Sprung, Charles L., Truog, Robert D., Curtis, J. Randall, Joynt, Gavin M., Baras, Mario, Michalsen, Andrej, Briegel, Josef, Kesecioglu, Jozef +16 more·2014·American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine

Abstract

Great differences in end-of-life practices in treating the critically ill around the world warrant agreement regarding the major ethical principles. This analysis determines the extent of worldwide consensus for end-of-life practices, delineates where there is and is not consensus, and analyzes reasons for lack of consensus. Critical care societies worldwide were invited to participate. Country coordinators were identified and draft statements were developed for major end-of-life issues and translated into six languages. Multidisciplinary responses using a web-based survey assessed agreement or disagreement with definitions and statements linked to anonymous demographic information. Consensus was prospectively defined as >80% agreement. Definitions and statements not obtaining consensus were revised based on comments of respondents, and then translated and redistributed. Of the initial 1,283 responses from 32 countries, consensus was found for 66 (81%) of the 81 definitions and statements; 26 (32%) had >90% agreement. With 83 additional responses to the original questionnaire (1,366 total) and 604 responses to the revised statements, consensus could be obtained for another 11 of the 15 statements. Consensus was obtained for informed consent, withholding and withdrawing life-sustaining treatment, legal requirements, intensive care unit therapies, cardiopulmonary resuscitation, shared decision making, medical and nursing consensus, brain death, and palliative care. Consensus wa…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1164/rccm.201403-0593cc

Cites

43 of 43 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Structured, complex, multifaceted interventions in the context of advance care planning and shared decision making may effectively prevent disproportionate/unwanted end-of-life care and accordingly reduce use of healthcare resources.

    “Structured, complex, multifaceted interventions in the context of advance care planning and shared decision making may effectively prevent disproportionate/unwanted end-of-life care and accordingly reduce use of healthcare resources. 4,7,44,72,355,398”
  • Data from eight RCTs included in three systematic reviews indicated that communication interventions aiding the completion of advance directives had no significant effect on patient/family satisfaction with end-of-life care.

    “Data from eight RCTs included in three systematic reviews indicated that communication interventions aiding the completion of advance directives had no significant effect on patient/family satisfaction with end-of-life care. 4,7,8”
  • Evidence from 13 RCTs and from 8 nonrandomised studies included in 3 systematic reviews suggests associations of communication interventions with an increased frequency of DNACPR orders.

    “Evidence from 13 RCTs and from 8 nonrandomised studies included in 3 systematic reviews suggests associations of communication interventions with an increased frequency of DNACPR orders. 4,7,8,10”
  • Despite the limitations of the currently available, substantial but still heterogenous, body of evidence, the presence of either positive or neutral RCTs on structured communication tools aimed at facilitating the completion of advance care directives and plans suggests a class effect and increased likelihood of benefit compared with usual care.

    “Despite the limitations of the currently available, substantial but still heterogenous, body of evidence, the presence of either positive or neutral RCTs on structured communication tools aimed at facilitating the completion of advance care directives and plans suggests a class effect and increased likelihood of benefit compared with usual care. 4,7”
  • The certainty of existing evidence has been judged most frequently as low to very low by authors of systematic reviews.

    “Accordingly, the certainty of existing evidence has been judged most frequently as low to very low by authors of systematic reviews. 7 10,28,38,39,43,44,72”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Sprung, C. L., Truog, R. D., Curtis, J. R., Joynt, G. M., Baras, M., Michalsen, A., Briegel, J., Kesecioglu, J., Efferen, L., De Robertis, E., Bulpa, P., Metnitz, P., Patil, N., Hawryluck, L., Manthous, C., Moreno, R., Leonard, S., Hill, N. S., Wennberg, E., McDermid, R. C., Mikstacki, A., Mularski, R. A., Hartog, C. S., & Avidan, A.
Affiliations
  • Hadassah Medical Center (IL)
  • Boston Children's Hospital (US)
  • University of Washington (US)
  • Chinese University of Hong Kong (HK)
  • Hebrew University of Jerusalem (IL)
  • Department of Anaesthesiology and Critical Care Medicine, Tettnang Hospital, Tettnang, Germany
  • Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München (DE)
  • Department of Intensive Care Medicine, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
  • South Nassau Communities Hospital (US)
  • Department of Neurosciences, Reproductive and Odontostomatologic Sciences, University of Naples, Federico II, Naples, Italy
  • UCLouvain (BE)
  • University of Vienna (AT)
  • Brigham and Women's Hospital (US)
  • Toronto Western Hospital (CA)
  • Medical Intensive Care Unit, Lawrence and Memorial Hospital, New London, Connecticut
  • Unidade Local de Saúde de São José (PT)
  • King's College Hospital (GB)
  • Tufts Medical Center (US)
  • University of Gothenburg (SE)
  • University of Alberta (CA)
  • Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Therapy, Regional Hospital, Poznań, Poland
  • Kaiser Permanente (US)
  • Jena University Hospital (DE)
Corresponding author
Sprung, Charles L.
Venue
American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine
Published
2014-10-01
Volume
190
Issue
8
Pages
855-866
ISSN
  • 1073-449X (ISSN-L)
  • 1535-4970
OpenAlex
W2110407084
Cited by
250
References
43
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 30 · 2021: 26 · 2020: 40 · 2019: 19 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 19 · 2016: 16 · 2015: 22 · 2014: 4
FWCI
20.14
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Digital Access to Libraries (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Palliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Palliative and Oncologic Care
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics and bioethics in healthcare
Keywords
end-of-life care, critically ill patients, intensive care unit, international consensus, ethical principles, withholding and withdrawing life-sustaining treatment, informed consent, cardiopulmonary resuscitation, shared decision-making, brain death, palliative care
MeSH terms
Brain Death, Critical Care, Decision Making, Humans, Informed Consent, Intensive Care Units, International Cooperation, Palliative Care, Terminal Care, Critical Illness, Withholding Treatment

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