Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24780536›Full record

ReviewBMJ supportive & palliative care2014

Diagnosing dying: an integrative literature review.

Catriona Kennedy, Patricia Brooks-Young, Carol Brunton Gray, Phil Larkin, Michael Connolly, Bodil Wilde-Larsson, Maria Larsson, Tracy Smith, Susie Chater

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in BMJ supportive & palliative care, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 46 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
46citing papers in PubMed
–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

46 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Longitudinal studies on cohesion in a military context - A systematic review.Military psychology : the official journal of the Division of Military Psychology, American Psychological Association · 2022
    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

9 authors.

Catriona KennedyDepartment of Nursing and Midwifery, University of Limerick, Edinburgh Napier University, Limerick, Ireland.
Patricia Brooks-YoungEdinburgh Napier University NHS, Edinburgh, UK.
Carol Brunton GrayEdinburgh Napier University, Edinburgh, UK.
Phil LarkinUniversity College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.
Michael ConnollyAll Ireland Institute for Hospice and Palliative Care/University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.
Bodil Wilde-LarssonUniversity of Karlstad Universitetsgatan 2, Karlstad, Sweden.
Maria LarssonUniversity of Karlstad Universitetsgatan 2, Karlstad, Sweden.
Tracy SmithUniversity of Karlstad Universitetsgatan 2, Karlstad, Sweden.
Susie ChaterDepartment of Palliative Medicine, St Columba's Hospice, Edinburgh, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTo ensure patients and families receive appropriate end-of-life care pathways and guidelines aim to inform clinical decision making. Ensuring appropriate outcomes through the use of these decision aids is dependent on timely use. Diagnosing dying is a complex clinical decision, and most of the available practice checklists relate to cancer. There is a need to review evidence to establish diagnostic indicators that death is imminent on the basis of need rather than a cancer diagnosis.

aimTo examine the evidence as to how patients are judged by clinicians as being in the final hours or days of life.

designIntegrative literature review. DATA SOURCES: Five electronic databases (2001-2011): Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) on The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and CINAHL. The search yielded a total of 576 hits, 331 titles and abstracts were screened, 42 papers were retrieved and reviewed and 23 articles were included.

resultsAnalysis reveals an overarching theme of uncertainty in diagnosing dying and two subthemes: (1) 'characteristics of dying' involve dying trajectories that incorporate physical, social, spiritual and psychological decline towards death; (2) 'treatment orientation' where decision making related to diagnosing dying may remain focused towards biomedical interventions rather than systematic planning for end-of-life care.

conclusionsThe findings of this review support the explicit recognition of 'uncertainty in diagnosing dying' and the need to work with and within this concept. Clinical decision making needs to allow for recovery where that potential exists, but equally there is the need to avoid futile interventions.

Indexed as

DeathDecision Support TechniquesHumansTerminal CareClinical decisionsTerminal care

Identifiers

PMID24780536
PMCPMC4145438

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.