Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26466809›Full record

Trial reportTrials2015

Alternative forms of hydration in patients with cancer in the last days of life: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

Andrew Davies, Melanie Waghorn, Julia Boyle, Ann Gallagher, Sigurd Johnsen

Registry-linked trialAbstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Trials, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02344927 (A Cluster Randomised Trial of Alternative Forms of Hydration in Cancer Patients in the Last Days of Life), which is not on this map. Cited by 6 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 3 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.

NCT02344927 nacompletednot on this map

A Cluster Randomised Trial of Alternative Forms of Hydration in Cancer Patients in the Last Days of Life (Feasibility Study)

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of SurreyRan2015 to 2016Enrolled200ConditionsCancerArmsNon-Clinically Assisted Hydration arm, Clinically Assisted Hydration arm
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Medically assisted hydration for adults receiving palliative care.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. 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.

Andrew DaviesRoyal Surrey County Hospital, Guildford, Surrey, GU2 7XX, UK. adavies12@nhs.net.
Melanie WaghornRoyal Surrey County Hospital, Guildford, Surrey, GU2 7XX, UK. melaniewaghorn@nhs.net.
Julia BoyleSurrey CTU, Surrey Clinical Research Centre, School of Biosciences and Medicine, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Surrey, Egerton Road, Guildford, Surrey, GU2 7XH, UK. j.boyle@surrey.ac.uk.
Ann GallagherSchool of Health Sciences, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Surrey, Guildford, Surrey, GU2 5XH, UK. A.Gallagher@surrey.ac.uk.
Sigurd JohnsenSurrey CTU, Surrey Clinical Research Centre, School of Biosciences and Medicine, Faculty of Health and Medical Sciences, University of Surrey, Egerton Road, Guildford, Surrey, GU2 7XH, UK. S.Johnsen@surrey.ac.uk.

Funding

Department of Health PB-PG-0613-31100
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe provision of clinically assisted hydration at the end of life is one of the most contentious issues in medicine, and indeed within the general population. The reasons for contention include: a) the lack of evidence for or against; b) the disparate opinions of healthcare professionals; and c) the generally positive opinions of patients and their carers about clinically assisted hydration. METHODS/

designThe study is a cluster randomised trial to assess the feasibility of conducting an adequately powered, randomised controlled trial of clinically assisted hydration in patients with cancer in the last days of life. Twelve sites, four National Health Service (NHS) hospitals and eight NHS/voluntary sector hospices in the United Kingdom, will be randomised to give either standard intervention A: continuance of oral intake and regular mouth care, or standard intervention B: continuance of oral intake, regular mouth care and clinically assisted hydration. Patients will be included if they: i) have a diagnosis of cancer; ii) are aged ≥ 18 yr; iii) have an estimated prognosis of ≤ 1 week and iv) are unable to maintain sufficient oral intake (1 L per day, measured/estimated); and v) are able to give informed consent. Patients will be excluded if they have contra-indications to receiving clinically assisted hydration. The primary endpoint of interest is the frequency of hyperactive delirium ('terminal agitation'), and this will be assessed using the Modified Richmond Agitation and Sedation Scale (administered every four hours). Other data to be collected include the frequency of pain, respiratory secretions ('death rattle'), dyspnoea, nausea and vomiting, adverse effects to clinically assisted hydration and overall survival. In addition, data will be collected on the use of anti-psychotic drugs, sedative drugs, analgesics, anti-secretory drugs and other end-of-life medication. The study has obtained full ethical approval. DISCUSSION: A randomised controlled trial of clinically assisted hydration in end-of-life care is urgently required. This feasibility study will allow methodological and ethical issues to be understood and addressed to ensure that a robust, adequately powered, randomised controlled trial is designed.

trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT02344927 (registered 4 June 2014).

Indexed as

Water-Electrolyte BalanceClinical ProtocolsDeliriumFeasibility StudiesFluid TherapyHealth StatusHumansNeoplasmsOral HygienePalliative CarePolypharmacyResearch DesignTerminal CareTime FactorsTreatment OutcomeUnited Kingdom

Identifiers

PMID26466809
PMCPMC4607172

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.