Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26481400›Full record

SynthesisBMC palliative care2015

UK quality statements on end of life care in dementia: a systematic review of research evidence.

Bridget Candy, Margaret Elliott, Kirsten Moore, Victoria Vickerstaff, Elizabeth Sampson, Louise Jones

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC palliative care, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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.

Bridget CandyMarie Curie Palliative Care Research Department, UCL Division of Psychiatry, 6th Floor, Wing B, Maple House, 149 Tottenham Court Road, London, W1T 7NF, UK. b.candy@ucl.ac.uk.
Margaret ElliottMarie Curie Palliative Care Research Department, UCL Division of Psychiatry, 6th Floor, Wing B, Maple House, 149 Tottenham Court Road, London, W1T 7NF, UK. Margaret.elliott3@nhs.net.
Kirsten MooreMarie Curie Palliative Care Research Department, UCL Division of Psychiatry, 6th Floor, Wing B, Maple House, 149 Tottenham Court Road, London, W1T 7NF, UK. Kirsten.moore@ucl.ac.uk.
Victoria VickerstaffMarie Curie Palliative Care Research Department, UCL Division of Psychiatry, 6th Floor, Wing B, Maple House, 149 Tottenham Court Road, London, W1T 7NF, UK. v.vickerstaff@ucl.ac.uk.
Elizabeth SampsonMarie Curie Palliative Care Research Department, UCL Division of Psychiatry, 6th Floor, Wing B, Maple House, 149 Tottenham Court Road, London, W1T 7NF, UK. e.sampson@ucl.ac.uk.
Louise JonesMarie Curie Palliative Care Research Department, UCL Division of Psychiatry, 6th Floor, Wing B, Maple House, 149 Tottenham Court Road, London, W1T 7NF, UK. caroline.jones@ucl.ac.uk.

Funding

Marie Curie MCCC-FCO-11-UMarie Curie MCCC-FPR-11-UMarie Curie MCCC-PRO-11-U
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGlobally, the number of people who die with dementia is increasing. The importance of a palliative approach in the care of people with dementia is recognised and there are national polices to enhance current care. In the UK implementation of these polices is promoted by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) Dementia Quality Standards (QS). Since publication of the QS new care interventions have been developed.

aimTo explore critically the current international research evidence on effect available to inform NICE Dementia QS relevant to end of life (EOL) care.

designWe used systematic review methods to seek the research evidence for three statements within the Dementia QS. These are those that recommend: (1) a case management approach, (2) discussing and consideration of making a statement about future care (SFC) and (3) a palliative care assessment (PCA). We included evaluative studies of relevant interventions that used a comparative design, such as trials and cohort studies, and measured EOL care outcomes for persons dying with moderate to severe dementia. Our primary outcome of interest was whether the intervention led to a measurable impact on wellbeing for the person with dementia and their family. We assessed included studies for quality using a scale by Higginson and colleagues (2002) for assessment of quality of studies in palliative care, and two authors undertook key review processes. Data sources included Cinahl, Embase, and PsychINFO from 2001 to August 2014. Our search strategy included free text and medical subject headings relevant to population and recommended care.

resultsWe found seven studies evaluating a care intervention; four assessed SFC, three PCA. None assessed case management. Studies were of weak design; all used retrospective data and relied on others for precise record keeping and for accurate recall of events. There was limited overlap in outcome measurements. Overall reported benefits were mixed.

conclusionsQuality statements relevant to EOL care are useful to advance practice however they have a limited evidence base. High quality empirical work is needed to establish that the recommendations in these statements are best practice.

Indexed as

Cost-Benefit AnalysisDementiaEvidence-Based MedicineHumansRetrospective StudiesTerminal CareUnited Kingdom

Identifiers

PMID26481400
PMCPMC4617713

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.