ArticleBMJ open2016
Protocol for a systematic review of preference-based instruments for measuring care-related outcomes and their suitability for the palliative care setting.
Article in BMJ open, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Protocol for a scoping review on transition-related surgery procedures, outcome measures and access to care.BMJ open · 2022Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionDespite informal caregivers' integral role in supporting people affected by disease or disability, economic evaluations often ignore the costs and benefits experienced by this group, especially in the palliative setting. The purpose of this systematic review is to identify preference-based instruments for measuring care-related outcomes and provide guidance on the selection of instrument in palliative care economic evaluations. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A comprehensive search of the literature will be conducted from database inception (ASSIA; CINAHL; Cochrane library including DARE, NHS EED, HTA; Econlit; Embase; PsychINFO; PubMed). Published peer-reviewed, English-language articles reporting preference-based instruments for measuring care-related outcomes in any clinical area will be included. One researcher will complete the searches and screen the results for potentially eligible studies. A randomly selected subset of 10% citations will be independently screened by two researchers. Any disagreement will be resolved by consensus among the research team. Subsequently, a supplementary search will identify studies detailing the development, valuation, validation and application of the identified instruments. The degree of suitability of the instruments for palliative economic evaluations will be assessed using criteria in the International Society for Quality of Life Research minimum standards for patient-reported outcome measures, the checklist for reporting valuation studies of multiattribute utility-based instruments and information on the development of the instrument in the palliative setting. A narrative summary of the included studies and instruments will be provided; similarities and differences will be described and possible reasons for variations explored. Recommendations for practice on selection of instruments in palliative care economic analyses will be provided. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This is a planned systematic review of published literature. Therefore, ethics approval to conduct this research is not required. Findings will be presented at leading palliative care and health economic conferences and published in a peer-reviewed journal. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42016034188.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.