Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24917264›Full record

SynthesisJournal of oncology practice2014

Quality measures for palliative care in patients with cancer: a systematic review.

Arif H Kamal, Margaret Gradison, Jennifer M Maguire, Donald Taylor, Amy P Abernethy

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of oncology practice, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 41 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
41citing papers in PubMed, 4 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

41 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. What Is the State of Quality Measurement in Spine Surgery?Clinical orthopaedics and related research · 2018
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  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

5 authors.

Arif H KamalDuke Cancer Institute, Duke University Medical Center; Duke Center for Learning Health Care, Duke Clinical Research Institute; Sanford School of Public Policy, Duke University, Durham; Division of Pulmonary/Critical Care Medicine, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC arif.kamal@duke.edu.
Margaret GradisonDuke Cancer Institute, Duke University Medical Center; Duke Center for Learning Health Care, Duke Clinical Research Institute; Sanford School of Public Policy, Duke University, Durham; Division of Pulmonary/Critical Care Medicine, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC.
Jennifer M MaguireDuke Cancer Institute, Duke University Medical Center; Duke Center for Learning Health Care, Duke Clinical Research Institute; Sanford School of Public Policy, Duke University, Durham; Division of Pulmonary/Critical Care Medicine, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC.
Donald TaylorDuke Cancer Institute, Duke University Medical Center; Duke Center for Learning Health Care, Duke Clinical Research Institute; Sanford School of Public Policy, Duke University, Durham; Division of Pulmonary/Critical Care Medicine, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC.
Amy P AbernethyDuke Cancer Institute, Duke University Medical Center; Duke Center for Learning Health Care, Duke Clinical Research Institute; Sanford School of Public Policy, Duke University, Durham; Division of Pulmonary/Critical Care Medicine, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC.

Funding

Implementing best practice in palliative careR18HS022763 · AHRQ · DUKE UNIVERSITY · PI JOHNSON, KIMBERLY S. · 2013 to 2017
$2.5M
AHRQ HHS R18 HS022763
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeQuality assessment is a critical component of determining the value of medical services, including palliative care. Characterization of the current portfolio of measures that assess the quality of palliative care delivered in oncology is necessary to identify gaps and inform future measure development.

methodsWe performed a systematic review of MEDLINE/PubMed and the gray literature for quality measures relevant to palliative care. Measures were categorized into National Quality Forum domains and reviewed for methodology of development and content. Measures were additionally analyzed to draw summative conclusions on scope and span.

resultsTwo hundred eighty-four quality measures within 13 measure sets were identified. The most common domains for measure content were Physical Aspects of Care (35%) and Structure and Processes of Care (22%). Of symptom-related measures, pain (36%) and dyspnea (26%) were the most commonly addressed. Spiritual (4%) and Cultural (1%) Aspects of Care were least represented domains. Generally, measures addressed processes of care, did not delineate benchmarks for success, and often did not specify intended interventions to address unmet needs. This was most evident regarding issues of psychosocial and spiritual assessment and management.

conclusionWithin a large cohort of quality measures for palliative, care is often a focus on physical manifestations of disease and adverse effects of therapy; relatively little attention is given to the other aspects of suffering commonly observed among patients with advanced cancer, including psychological, social, and spiritual distress.

Indexed as

HumansNeoplasmsPalliative Care

Identifiers

PMID24917264
PMCPMC4094644

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.