Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27165052›Full record

Trial reportSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2016

Advanced cancer patients' reported wishes at the end of life: a randomized controlled trial.

Marvin O Delgado-Guay, Alfredo Rodriguez-Nunez, Vera De la Cruz, Susan Frisbee-Hume, Janet Williams, Jimin Wu, Diane Liu, Michael J Fisch, Eduardo Bruera

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Developing a Card Game for Assessment and Intervention in the Person and the Family in Palliative Care: "International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Observational
  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

9 authors.

Marvin O Delgado-GuayDepartment of Palliative Care and Rehabilitation and Integrative Medicine , Unit 1414, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd., Houston, TX, 77030, USA. marvin.delgado@mdanderson.org.
Alfredo Rodriguez-NunezPrograma de Medicina Paliativa y Cuidados Continuos, Facultad de Medicina, Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, Santiago, Chile.
Vera De la CruzDepartment of Palliative Care and Rehabilitation and Integrative Medicine , Unit 1414, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd., Houston, TX, 77030, USA.
Susan Frisbee-HumeDepartment of Palliative Care and Rehabilitation and Integrative Medicine , Unit 1414, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd., Houston, TX, 77030, USA.
Janet WilliamsDepartment of Palliative Care and Rehabilitation and Integrative Medicine , Unit 1414, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd., Houston, TX, 77030, USA.
Jimin WuDepartment of Biostatistics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
Diane LiuDepartment of Biostatistics, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
Michael J FischAIM Specialty Health, Medical Oncology, Chicago, IL, USA.
Eduardo BrueraDepartment of Palliative Care and Rehabilitation and Integrative Medicine , Unit 1414, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd., Houston, TX, 77030, USA.

Funding

Parenteral Hydration in Advanced Cancer Patients: A Randomized Controlled TrialR01CA122292 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF TX MD ANDERSON CAN CTR · PI BRUERA, EDUARDO · 2006 to 2009
$2.2M
Methylphenidate for Fatigue in Advanced Cancer PatientsR01NR010162 · NINR · UNIVERSITY OF TX MD ANDERSON CAN CTR · PI BRUERA, EDUARDO · 2006 to 2009
$1.3M
Morphine versus Methadone as First Line Strong Opioid for Cancer PainR01CA124481 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF TX MD ANDERSON CAN CTR · PI BRUERA, EDUARDO · 2007 to 2009
$1.2M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA122292NCI NIH HHS R01 CA124481NINR NIH HHS R01 NR010162
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

contextConversations about end-of-life (EOL) wishes are challenging for many clinicians. The Go Wish card game (GWG) was developed to facilitate these conversations. Little is known about the type and consistency of EOL wishes using the GWG in advanced cancer patients.

methodsWe conducted a randomized controlled trial to assess the EOL wishes of 100 patients with advanced cancer treated at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center. The purpose of this study was to determine the EOL wishes of patients with advanced cancer and to compare patients' preference between the GWG and List of wishes/statements (LOS) containing the same number of items. Patients were randomized into four groups and completed either the GWG or a checklist of 35 LOS and one opened statement found on the GWG cards; patients were asked to categorize these wishes as very, somewhat, or not important. After 4-24 h, the patients were asked to complete the same or other test. Group A (n = 25) received LOS-LOS, group B (n = 25) received GWG-GWG, group C (n = 26) received GWG-LOS, and group D (n = 24) received LOS-GWG. All patients completed the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI) for adults before and after the first test.

resultsMedian age (interquartile range = IQR): 56 (27-83) years. Age, sex, ethnicity, marital status, religion, education, and cancer diagnosis did not differ significantly among the four groups. All patients were able to complete the GWG and/or LOS. The ten most common wishes identified as very important by patients in the first and second test were to be at peace with God (74 vs. 71 %); to pray (62 vs. 61 %); and to have family present (57 vs. 61 %). to be free from pain (54 vs. 60 %); not being a burden to my family (48 vs. 49 %); to trust my doctor (44 vs. 45 %); to keep my sense of humor (41 vs. 45 %); to say goodbye to important people in my life (41 vs. 37 %); to have my family prepared for my death (40 vs. 49 %); and to be able to help others (36 vs. 31 %). There was significant association among the frequency of responses of the study groups. Of the 50 patients exposed to both tests, 43 (86 %) agreed that the GWG instructions were clear, 45 (90 %) agreed that the GWG was easy to understand, 31 (62 %) preferred the GWG, 39 (78 %) agreed that the GWG did not increase their anxiety and 31 (62 %) agreed that having conversations about EOL priorities was beneficial. The median STAI score after GWG was 48 (interquartile range, 39-59) vs. 47 (interquartile range, 27-63) after LOS (p = 0.2952).

conclusionPatients with advanced cancer assigned high importance to spirituality and the presence/relationships of family, and these wishes were consistent over the two tests. The GWG did not worsen anxiety.

Indexed as

AdultAgedAged, 80 and overCommunicationFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasmsPatient PreferenceSpiritualityTerminal CareAdvanced cancerCommunicationWishes at end of life

Identifiers

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.