Trial reportBMJ (Clinical research ed.)2003
Novel consent process for research in dying patients unable to give consent.
Trial report in BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2003. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 54 citations in OpenAlex.
- Medically assisted hydration for adults receiving palliative care.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Medically assisted hydration for adult palliative care patients.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2014Pooled it
- When a dying patient is asked to participate in a double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial on symptom control: The decision-making process and experiences of relatives.Palliative medicine · 2022Trial
- Scopolaminebutyl given prophylactically for death rattle: study protocol of a randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial in a frail patient population (the SILENCE study).BMC palliative care · 2018Trial
- Trial
- Multi-perspective views about healthcare experiences for those with incurable head and neck cancer: A prospective, longitudinal, qualitative study.Palliative medicine · 2026Article
- On Power and Freedom: Extending the Definition of Coercion.Perspectives on behavior science · 2020Article
- Collecting biological material from palliative care patients in the last weeks of life: a feasibility study.BMJ open · 2016Article
- Quality of transition to end-of-life care for cancer patients in the intensive care unit.Annals of intensive care · 2015Article
- Ethical challenges and solutions regarding delirium studies in palliative care.Journal of pain and symptom management · 2014Review
- Article
- Patient centred death.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2003Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo develop a process of advance consent to enable research to be undertaken in patients in the terminal phase.
designFeasibility study of an advance consent process to support a randomised controlled trial of two antimuscarinic drugs (hyoscine hydrobromide and glycopyrronium bromide) in the management of noisy respirations associated with retained secretions ("death rattle").
settingPalliative care wards in a major cancer centre.
participantsPatients admitted to a palliative care ward who may develop "death rattle" and thus be eligible for randomisation.
main outcome measuresPatient accrual; acceptability of the consent process.
resultsOf the 107 patients approached, 58 patients gave advance consent to participate in the study. Of these, 15 patients developed death rattle and were randomised to receive either hyoscine or glycopyrronium; 16 patients died elsewhere; 15 patients died on the palliative care wards but were not randomised; 12 patients are still alive.
conclusionsInitial assessment suggests that this is a workable consent process allowing research to be undertaken in patients who are unable to give consent at the time of randomisation. Patient accrual rates to date are lower than needed to recruit adequate numbers in the time allotted to answer the research question.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.