Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 241

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Decisions about Resuscitation: Inequities among Patients with Different Diseases but Similar Prognoses

Wachter, Robert M., Luce, John M., Hearst, Norman, Lo, Bernard·1989·Annals of Internal Medicine

Abstract

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To assess whether decisions about "do-not-resuscitate" (DNR) orders are made equitably in patients with different diseases but similar prognoses. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Three teaching hospitals: a university referral center, a county hospital serving a largely indigent population, and a Veterans Administration hospital. PATIENTS: Consecutive patients with any of the four following discharge diagnoses: the acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) (100 patients); unresectable non-small-cell lung cancer (51 patients); cirrhosis with esophageal varices (51 patients); and severe congestive heart failure with coronary artery disease (115 patients). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Do-not-resuscitate orders were written for 52% of patients with AIDS and 47% of patients with cancer but for only 16% of patients with cirrhosis and 5% of patients with congestive heart failure (P less than 0.0001). Although DNR orders were associated with functional and mental status, reason for admission, and severity of illness, the strong association between DNR orders and disease category persisted after adjustment for these potential confounders by multiple logistic regression. A survey of housestaff showed that DNR orders were discussed more frequently with patients who had AIDS or lung cancer than with patients who had cirrhosis or heart failure, despite an accurate understanding of the generally similar prognoses among the four groups. CONCLUSIONS: Despite relatively similar prognoses, patients with AIDS or lung cancer are much more likely to receive DNR orders than patients with cirrhosis or severe congestive heart failure. This discrepancy cannot be explained by differences in severity of illness among patients or by misunderstandings of prognosis by clinicians. From our data, we cannot determine if patients with cirrhosis or heart failure receive too few DNR orders or if patients with AIDS or lung cancer receive too many. Our findings should encourage physicians to determine the preferences of patients about life-sustaining treatments more equitably.

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 · 10.7326/0003-4819-111-6-525

Cites

2 of 2 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 2 references

Cited by

See all 241

Metadata

Authors
Wachter, R. M., Luce, J. M., Hearst, N., & Lo, B.
Venue
Annals of Internal Medicine
Published
1989-09-15
Volume
111
Issue
6
Pages
525-532
ISSN
  • 0003-4819 (ISSN-L)
  • 1539-3704
OpenAlex
W2067797135
Cited by
241
References
2
FWCI
18.99
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: Decisions about Resuscitation: Inequities among Patients with Different Diseases but Similar Prognoses. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.7326/0003-4819-111-6-525
The paper
Wachter, R. M., Luce, J. M., Hearst, N., & Lo, B. (1989). Decisions about Resuscitation: Inequities among Patients with Different Diseases but Similar Prognoses. Annals of Internal Medicine. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-111-6-525

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.