Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23618406›Full record

ReviewBMC medicine2013

Evaluating complex interventions in end of life care: the MORECare statement on good practice generated by a synthesis of transparent expert consultations and systematic reviews.

Irene J Higginson, Catherine J Evans, Gunn Grande, Nancy Preston, Myfanwy Morgan, Paul McCrone, Penney Lewis, Peter Fayers, Richard Harding, Matthew Hotopf and 6 more

Registry-linked trialOpen access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in BMC medicine, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04525924 (Feasibility Study of Adjunctive Bright Light Therapy), which is not on this map. Cited by 165 papers, 21 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
165citing papers in PubMed, 21 pooled it
24.5field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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.

NCT04525924 naunknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2020, after this paper: background citation

Feasibility Study of Adjunctive Bright Light Therapy (BLT) for Amelioration of Fatigue in Chinese Cancer Patients Admitted to a Palliative Care Unit

TypeinterventionalSponsorHospital Authority, Hong KongRan2020 to 2020Enrolled42ConditionsFatigue, CancerArmsbright light therapy
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

165 citing papers in PubMed, 21 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 348 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Guideline
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Hospital at home: home-based end-of-life care.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2021
    Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Pooled it
  17. Pooled it
  18. Pooled it
  19. Pooled it
  20. Pooled it

105 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

16 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.

Irene J HigginsonKing's College London, Cicely Saunders Institute, Department of Palliative Care, Policy and Rehabilitation, Bessmer Road, Denmark Hill, London SE5 9PJ, UK. irene.higginson@kcl.ac.uk
Catherine J Evans
Gunn Grande
Nancy Preston
Myfanwy Morgan
Paul McCrone
Penney Lewis
Peter Fayers
Richard Harding
Matthew Hotopf
Scott A Murray
Hamid Benalia
Marjolein Gysels
Morag Farquhar
Chris Todd
MORECare
King's College London · GBUniversity of Manchester · GBUniversity of Aberdeen · GBUniversity of Cambridge · GBUniversity of Edinburgh · GBVirgin Care · GB

Funding

Medical Research Council G0802654/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDespite being a core business of medicine, end of life care (EoLC) is neglected. It is hampered by research that is difficult to conduct with no common standards. We aimed to develop evidence-based guidance on the best methods for the design and conduct of research on EoLC to further knowledge in the field.

methodsThe Methods Of Researching End of life Care (MORECare) project built on the Medical Research Council guidance on the development and evaluation of complex circumstances. We conducted systematic literature reviews, transparent expert consultations (TEC) involving consensus methods of nominal group and online voting, and stakeholder workshops to identify challenges and best practice in EoLC research, including: participation recruitment, ethics, attrition, integration of mixed methods, complex outcomes and economic evaluation. We synthesised all findings to develop a guidance statement on the best methods to research EoLC.

resultsWe integrated data from three systematic reviews and five TECs with 133 online responses. We recommend research designs extending beyond randomised trials and encompassing mixed methods. Patients and families value participation in research, and consumer or patient collaboration in developing studies can resolve some ethical concerns. It is ethically desirable to offer patients and families the opportunity to participate in research. Outcome measures should be short, responsive to change and ideally used for both clinical practice and research. Attrition should be anticipated in studies and may affirm inclusion of the relevant population, but careful reporting is necessitated using a new classification. Eventual implementation requires consideration at all stages of the project.

conclusionsThe MORECare statement provides 36 best practice solutions for research evaluating services and treatments in EoLC to improve study quality and set the standard for future research. The statement may be used alongside existing statements and provides a first step in setting common, much needed standards for evaluative research in EoLC. These are relevant to those undertaking research, trainee researchers, research funders, ethical committees and editors.

Indexed as

Biomedical ResearchHumansPractice Guidelines as TopicQuality of Health CareTerminal Care

Identifiers

PMID23618406
PMCPMC3635872
OpenAlexW2118866555

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.