Pediatric Death After Withdrawal of Life-Sustaining Therapies: A Scoping Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Evaluate literature on the dying process in children after withdrawal of life sustaining measures (WLSM) in the PICU. We focused on the physiology of dying, prediction of time to death, impact of time to death, and uncertainty of the dying process on families, healthcare workers, and organ donation. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Web of Science. STUDY SELECTION: We included studies that discussed the dying process after WLSM in the PICU, with no date or study type restrictions. We excluded studies focused exclusively on adult or neonatal populations, children outside the PICU, or on organ donation or adult/pediatric studies where pediatric data could not be isolated. DATA EXTRACTION: Inductive qualitative content analysis was performed. DATA SYNTHESIS: Six thousand two hundred twenty-five studies were screened and 24 included. Results were grouped into four categories: dying process, perspectives of healthcare professionals and family, WLSM and organ donation, and recommendations for future research. Few tools exist to predict time to death after WLSM in children. Most deaths after WLSM occur within 1 hour and during this process, healthcare providers must offer support to families regarding logistics, medications, and expectations. Providers describe the unpredictability of the dying process as emotionally challenging and stressful for family members and staff; however, no reports of families discussing the impact of time to death prediction were found. The unpredictability of death after WLSM makes families less likely to pursue donation. Future research priorities include developing death prediction tools of tools, provider and parental decision-making, and interventions to improve end-of-life care. CONCLUSIONS: The dying process in children is poorly understood and understudied. This knowledge gap leaves families in a vulnerable position and the clinical team without the necessary tools to support patients, families, or themselves. Improving time to death prediction after WLSM may improve care provision and enable identification of potential organ donors.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.063 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".