• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利：CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法，用中文像聊天一样搜索，搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐，让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版，准确专业，支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式，支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述，25分钟生成高质量综述，智能提取关键信息，辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

POINT: Is Considering Social Determinants of Health Ethically Permissible for Fair Allocation of Critical Care Resources During the COVID-19 Pandemic? Yes.

作者信息

White Douglas B, Lo Bernard, Peek Monica E

机构信息

Program on Ethics and Decision Making in Critical Illness, Pittsburgh, PA; Department of Critical Care Medicine, Pittsburgh, PA.

University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, San Francisco, CA; Department of Medicine, University of California San Francisco School of Medicine, San Francisco, CA; The Greenwall Foundation, New York, NY.

出版信息

Chest. 2022 Jul;162(1):37-40. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2022.03.028.

DOI:10.1016/j.chest.2022.03.028
PMID:35809936
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9257161/
Abstract
摘要

相似文献

1
POINT: Is Considering Social Determinants of Health Ethically Permissible for Fair Allocation of Critical Care Resources During the COVID-19 Pandemic? Yes.观点：在新冠疫情期间，考虑健康的社会决定因素以实现重症监护资源的公平分配在伦理上是否可行？可行。
Chest. 2022 Jul;162(1):37-40. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2022.03.028.
2
COUNTERPOINT: Is Considering Social Determinants of Health Ethically Permissible for Fair Allocation of Critical Care Resources During the COVID-19 Pandemic? No.反驳观点：在新冠疫情期间，将健康的社会决定因素纳入考量以实现重症监护资源的公平分配在伦理上是否可行？答案是否定的。
Chest. 2022 Jul;162(1):40-42. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2022.03.029.
3
Developing a Thai national critical care allocation guideline during the COVID-19 pandemic: a rapid review and stakeholder consultation.在 COVID-19 大流行期间制定泰国国家重症监护分配指南：快速审查和利益相关者咨询。
Health Res Policy Syst. 2021 Mar 31;19(1):47. doi: 10.1186/s12961-021-00696-z.
4
Treating patients across European Union borders: An international survey in light of the coronavirus disease-19 pandemic.跨越欧盟边界治疗患者：新冠肺炎大流行背景下的国际调查。
Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2021 Apr 1;38(4):344-347. doi: 10.1097/EJA.0000000000001423.
5
Prioritising 'already-scarce' intensive care unit resources in the midst of COVID-19: a call for regional triage committees in South Africa.在新冠疫情期间优先分配“本就稀缺的”重症监护病房资源：呼吁南非成立地区分诊委员会。
BMC Med Ethics. 2021 Mar 22;22(1):28. doi: 10.1186/s12910-021-00596-5.
6
Tragic choices in intensive care during the COVID-19 pandemic: on fairness, consistency and community.COVID-19 大流行期间重症监护中的悲惨选择：关于公平、一致性和社区。
J Med Ethics. 2020 Oct;46(10):646-651. doi: 10.1136/medethics-2020-106487. Epub 2020 Aug 7.
7
What is common and what is different: recommendations from European scientific societies for triage in the first outbreak of COVID-19.常见与不同之处：欧洲科学学会针对 COVID-19 首次爆发的分诊建议。
J Med Ethics. 2022 Jul;48(7):472-478. doi: 10.1136/medethics-2020-106969. Epub 2021 May 12.
8
Life-Years & Rationing in the Covid-19 Pandemic: A Critical Analysis.新冠疫情下的寿命年数与资源分配：批判性分析。
Hastings Cent Rep. 2021 Sep;51(5):18-29. doi: 10.1002/hast.1283.
9
Neurotrauma, COVID and the rationing of intensive care: an ethical approach.神经创伤、COVID 和重症监护的配给：一种伦理方法。
Br J Neurosurg. 2022 Oct;36(5):594-599. doi: 10.1080/02688697.2021.2024507. Epub 2022 Jan 24.
10
Reserve Systems for Allocation of Scarce Medical Resources During the COVID-19 Pandemic: The Path From April 2020 to April 2021.新冠疫情期间稀缺医疗资源分配的储备系统：2020年4月至2021年4月的历程
Chest. 2021 Oct;160(4):1572-1575. doi: 10.1016/j.chest.2021.06.001.

引用本文的文献

1
A transfer triage tool for COVID-19 mass critical care surges.一种用于新冠疫情大规模重症护理高峰的转运分诊工具。
Sci Rep. 2025 Apr 5;15(1):11726. doi: 10.1038/s41598-025-95337-8.
2
Who Receives ICU Care during Times of Strain? Triage and the Potential for Racial Disparities.在紧张时期谁能获得重症监护病房（ICU）护理？分诊与种族差异的可能性。
Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2022 Dec;19(12):1973-1974. doi: 10.1513/AnnalsATS.202209-766ED.

本文引用的文献

1
A Multicenter Weighted Lottery to Equitably Allocate Scarce COVID-19 Therapeutics.一项用于公平分配稀缺新冠治疗药物的多中心加权抽签法
Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2022 Aug 15;206(4):503-506. doi: 10.1164/rccm.202201-0133LE.
2
Association Of Neighborhood Disadvantage With Racial Disparities In COVID-19 Positivity In Chicago.社区劣势与芝加哥新冠病毒阳性检测率中的种族差异存在关联。
Health Aff (Millwood). 2021 Nov;40(11):1784-1791. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2021.00695.
3
Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Rates of COVID-19-Associated Hospitalization, Intensive Care Unit Admission, and In-Hospital Death in the United States From March 2020 to February 2021.2020 年 3 月至 2021 年 2 月期间美国 COVID-19 相关住院率、重症监护病房入院率和住院死亡率的种族和民族差异。
JAMA Netw Open. 2021 Oct 1;4(10):e2130479. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.30479.
4
Crisis Standards of Care and COVID-19: What Did We Learn? How Do We Ensure Equity? What Should We Do?危机护理标准与 COVID-19：我们学到了什么？我们如何确保公平？我们该怎么做？
NAM Perspect. 2021 Aug 30;2021. doi: 10.31478/202108e. eCollection 2021.
5
Racial disparities in the SOFA score among patients hospitalized with COVID-19.COVID-19 住院患者 SOFA 评分的种族差异。
PLoS One. 2021 Sep 17;16(9):e0257608. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0257608. eCollection 2021.
6
Simulation of Ventilator Allocation in Critically Ill Patients with COVID-19.新型冠状病毒肺炎危重症患者呼吸机分配的模拟
Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2021 Nov 15;204(10):1224-1227. doi: 10.1164/rccm.202106-1453LE.
7
Accuracy of the Sequential Organ Failure Assessment Score for In-Hospital Mortality by Race and Relevance to Crisis Standards of Care.按种族划分的序贯器官衰竭评估评分对住院死亡率的准确性和与危重病标准护理的相关性。
JAMA Netw Open. 2021 Jun 1;4(6):e2113891. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.13891.
8
Promoting equity with a multi-principle framework to allocate scarce ICU resources.用多原则框架促进公平分配稀缺的 ICU 资源。
J Med Ethics. 2022 Feb;48(2):133-135. doi: 10.1136/medethics-2021-107456. Epub 2021 Jun 7.
9
Allocating scarce life-saving resources: the proper role of age.分配稀缺的救生资源：年龄的恰当作用。
J Med Ethics. 2021 Mar 22. doi: 10.1136/medethics-2020-106792.
10
Equitably Allocating Resources during Crises: Racial Differences in Mortality Prediction Models.危机期间公平分配资源：死亡率预测模型中的种族差异
Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2021 Jul 15;204(2):178-186. doi: 10.1164/rccm.202012-4383OC.