Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24362845›Full record

SynthesisSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2014

Reducing potentially inappropriate medications in palliative cancer patients: evidence to support deprescribing approaches.

Julian Lindsay, Michael Dooley, Jennifer Martin, Michael Fay, Alison Kearney, Michael Barras

Open access · bronzeAbstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
37citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 14% 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.

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

37 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 87 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Deprescribing in palliative patients with cancer: a concise review of tools and guidelines.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2022
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Pharmacist-led deprescribing interventions for cancer patients in a specialist palliative care setting.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2025
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. The potential for deprescribing in a palliative oncology patient population: a cross-sectional study.European journal of hospital pharmacy : science and practice · 2023
    Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. 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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Julian LindsayRoyal Brisbane and Women's Hospital, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia, julianlindsay1@gmail.com.
Michael Dooley
Jennifer Martin
Michael Fay
Alison Kearney
Michael Barras
Monash University · AURoyal Brisbane and Women's Hospital · AUThe University of Queensland · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesCancer patients who have transitioned from curative intent chemotherapy or radiotherapy to palliative therapy have limited life expectancies. Due to this, medications for primary and secondary prevention or those with no short-term benefit are potentially inappropriate medicines in this patient group. These medications often have potentially harmful profiles, increasing the patient's adverse drug events, pill burden, and medication costs. This review evaluates the most current evidence to assess the outcomes and potential methods used for identifying and ceasing potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) in palliative cancer patients.

methodsA systematic review of the literature was conducted using the databases Ovid MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, IPA, and CINAHL.

resultsOf the 51 articles examined in detail, three studies relating to cancer have been evaluated. In these retrospective and cross-sectional studies, the incidence of PIMs was shown in approximately 20% of patients, although the studies were inconsistent. In addition, six studies were identified that demonstrated the evidence in other population groups; these studies have been selected to establish the evidence in large-scale retrospective studies, prospective cross-sectional studies, both demonstrating the prevalence of PIMs, as well as the outcomes of ceasing PIMs.

conclusionThere is evidence that PIMs are commonly prescribed in palliative care patients. There are no studies that have identified the impact of ceasing PIMS in this setting. Published tools and implemented strategies have focused on the elderly populations. Further research is warranted in establishing clear guidelines for the identification of PIMs in palliative cancer patients as well as interventional studies assessing the outcomes of ceasing PIMs in these patients.

Indexed as

Inappropriate PrescribingPalliative CareAntineoplastic AgentsDatabases, FactualHumansMedication ErrorsNeoplasmsAntineoplastic Agents

Identifiers

PMID24362845
OpenAlexW2006850787

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.