Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21029455›Full record

ArticleBMC cancer2010

Preferences for active and aggressive intervention among patients with advanced cancer.

Vincent Maida, Jonathan Peck, Marguerite Ennis, Navjot Brar, Alexandria R Maida

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC cancer, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Factors related to specialized palliative care use and aggressive care at end of life in Japanese patients with advanced solid cancers: a cohort study.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2021
    Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Do-not-resuscitate orders in cancer patients: a review of literature.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2017
    Review
  8. Old age and poor prognosis increase the likelihood of disagreement between cancer patients and their oncologists on the indication for resuscitation attempt.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2013
    Article
  9. Deathless models of aging: time to reform CanMEDS.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2013
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Wound outcomes in patients with advanced illness.International wound journal · 2012
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Vincent MaidaDivision of Palliative Medicine, William Osler Health System, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. vincent.maida@utoronto.ca
Jonathan Peck
Marguerite Ennis
Navjot Brar
Alexandria R Maida

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIntrinsic to "Patient-Centered Care" is being respectful and responsive to individual patient preferences, expressed needs, and personal values. Establishing a patient's preferences for active and aggressive intervention is imperative and foundational to the development of advance care planning. With the increasing awareness and acceptance of palliative philosophies of care, patients with advanced cancer are increasingly transitioning from active and aggressive medical management (AAMM) to conservative palliative management (CPM).

methodsA cross-sectional study based on a prospective and sequential case series of patients referred to a regional palliative medicine consultative program was assembled between May 1, 2005 and June 30, 2006. Patients and/or their substitute decision makers (SDM) completed a questionnaire, at baseline, that assessed their preferences for AAMM en route to their eventual deaths. Seven common interventions constituting AAMM were surveyed: cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) & mechanical ventilation (MV), chemotherapy, antibiotics, anticoagulants, blood transfusions, feeding tubes, and artificial hydration. Multivariable analyses were conducted on the seven interventions individually as well as on the composite score that summed preferences for the seven interventions.

results380 patients with advanced cancer agreed to participate in the study. A trend to desire a mostly conservative palliative approach was noted as 42% of patients desired one or fewer interventions. At baseline, most patients and their SDM's were relatively secure about decisions pertaining to the seven interventions as the rates of being "undecided" ranged from a high of 23.4% for chemotherapy to a low of 3.9% for feeding tubes. Multivariable modeling showed that more AAMM was preferred by younger patients (P < 0.0001), non-Caucasians (P = 0.042), patients with higher baseline Palliative Performance Scale scores (P = 0.0002) and where a SDM was involved in the decision process (p = 0.027). Non-statistically significant trends to prefer more AAMM was observed with male gender (p = 0.077) and higher levels of the Charlson Comorbidity index (p = 0.059). There was no association between treatment preferences and cancer class.

conclusionsAlthough the majority of patients with advanced cancer in this study expressed preferences for CPM, younger age, higher baseline PPSv2, and involvement of SDMs in the decision process were significantly associated with preferences for AAMM.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAged, 80 and overCohort StudiesCommunicationComorbidityDecision MakingFemaleHumansMaleMedical OncologyMiddle AgedNeoplasmsPatient-Centered CarePatient ParticipationPhysician-Patient Relations

Identifiers

PMID21029455
PMCPMC2988029

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.