Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27704261›Full record

ArticleSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2017

Do-not-resuscitate consent signed by patients indicates a more favorable quality of end-of-life care for patients with advanced cancer.

Yi-Hsin Liang, Chih-Hsin Wei, Wen-Hui Hsu, Yu-Yun Shao, Ya-Chin Lin, Pei-Chun Chou, Ann-Lii Cheng, Kun-Huei Yeh

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 16% of its field
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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Pediatric Oncology Hospice: A Comprehensive Review.The American journal of hospice & palliative care · 2024
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Observational
  8. Article
  9. 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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Yi-Hsin LiangDepartment of Oncology, National Taiwan University Hospital, No. 7, Chung-Shan South Rd, Taipei, 10002, Taiwan.
Chih-Hsin WeiDepartment of Oncology, National Taiwan University Hospital, No. 7, Chung-Shan South Rd, Taipei, 10002, Taiwan.
Wen-Hui HsuDepartment of Nursing, National Taiwan University Hospital, Hsin-Chu Branch, Hsinchu City, Taiwan.
Yu-Yun ShaoDepartment of Oncology, National Center of Excellence for Clinical Trial and Research, National Taiwan University Hospital, Taipei City, Taiwan.
Ya-Chin LinDepartment of Nursing, National Taiwan University Hospital, Hsin-Chu Branch, Hsinchu City, Taiwan.
Pei-Chun ChouDepartment of Nursing, National Taiwan University Hospital, Hsin-Chu Branch, Hsinchu City, Taiwan.
Ann-Lii ChengDepartment of Oncology, National Center of Excellence for Clinical Trial and Research, National Taiwan University Hospital, Taipei City, Taiwan.
Kun-Huei YehDepartment of Oncology, National Taiwan University Hospital, No. 7, Chung-Shan South Rd, Taipei, 10002, Taiwan. khyeh@ntu.edu.tw.
National Taiwan University Hospital · TWNational Taiwan University · TW

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeDo-not-resuscitate (DNR) consent is crucial in end-of-life (EOL) care for patients with advanced cancer. However, DNR consents signed by patients (DNR-P) and surrogates (DNR-S) reflect differently on patient autonomy and awareness.

methodsThis retrospective study enrolled advanced cancer patients treated at National Taiwan University Hospital, Hsin-Chu Branch between 2012 and 2014. Patients who signed DNR consent at other hospitals were excluded; the remaining patients were subsequently classified into DNR-S and DNR-P groups.

resultsWe enrolled 1495 patients. The most prevalent primary cancers were hepato-biliary-pancreatic (26.9 %), lung (16.3 %), and colorectal (14.0 %) cancers. We classified 965 (64.5 %) and 530 (35.5 %) patients into the DNR-S and DNR-P groups, respectively. Significant differences were observed between both groups regarding gender (p = 0.002), age (p < 0.001), and the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance (p < 0.001) and educational (p < 0.001) status levels. The median survival times after DNR consent signature were 5.0 days (95 % confidence interval [CI] 4.4-5.6 days) and 14.0 days (95 % CI 12.1-15.9 days) in the DNR-S and DNR-P groups, respectively (p < 0.001). The median good death evaluation (GDE) scores were 5.4 (95 % CI 4.9-6.0) and 13.7 (95 % CI 12.7-14.6) in the DNR-S and DNR-P groups, respectively (p < 0.001). Univariate and multivariate analyses revealed that DNR-S was an independent factor for significantly low GDE scores (i.e., poor EOL care quality).

conclusionThe DNR concept is emerging; however, the DNR-P percentage remains low (35.6 %) in patients with advanced cancer. DNR-P significantly improves the EOL care quality.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overChildFemaleHospice CareHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasmsResuscitation OrdersRetrospective StudiesTerminal CareYoung AdultAdvanced cancerDo-not-resuscitateEnd-of-life careTerminal

Identifiers

PMID27704261
OpenAlexW2529724898

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.