Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27909034›Full record

Trial reportBMJ open2016

Advance care planning in patients with incurable cancer: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

Stephanie Johnson, Josephine Clayton, Phyllis N Butow, William Silvester, Karen Detering, Jane Hall, Belinda E Kiely, Jonathon Cebon, Stephen Clarke, Melanie L Bell and 3 more

Open access · goldAbstract readMulticenter StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMJ open, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.2field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 32 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Estimating survival in advanced cancer: a comparison of estimates made by oncologists and patients.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2020
    Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. We Want More Than Life-Sustaining Treatment during End-of-Life Care: Focus-Group Interviews.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Does implementation matter if comprehension is lacking? A qualitative investigation into perceptions of advance care planning in people with cancer.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2018
    Article
  12. Quality versus quantity in end-of-life choices of cancer patients and support persons: a discrete choice experiment.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2018
    Article
  13. Review
  14. 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

13 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.

Stephanie JohnsonCentre for Medical Psychology and Evidence-based Decision-making (CeMPED), School of Psychology, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-6777-8816
Josephine ClaytonHammondCare Palliative and Supportive Care Service, Greenwich Hospital, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Phyllis N ButowCentre for Medical Psychology and Evidence-based Decision-making (CeMPED), School of Psychology, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
William SilvesterAdvance Care Planning Department, Austin Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Karen DeteringAdvance Care Planning Department, Austin Hospital, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Jane HallCentre for Health Economics Research and Evaluation, University of Technology, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Belinda E KielyNational Health and Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Centre, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Jonathon CebonLudwig Institute for Cancer Research, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Stephen ClarkeKolling Institute of Medical Research, Northern Clinical School, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Melanie L BellMel and Enid Zuckerman College of Public Health, University of Arizona, Tucson, Arizona, USA.
Martin StocklerNational Health and Medical Research Council Clinical Trials Centre, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Phillip BealeDepartment of Medical Oncology, Sydney Local Health District (SLHD) and Royal Prince Alfred Hospital (RPA), Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Martin H N TattersallCentre for Medical Psychology and Evidence-based Decision-making (CeMPED), School of Psychology, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
The University of Sydney · AUAustin Hospital · AULudwig Cancer Research · AURoyal Prince Alfred Hospital · AUUniversity of Arizona · USUniversity of Technology Sydney · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThere is limited evidence documenting the effectiveness of Advance Care Planning (ACP) in cancer care. The present randomised trial is designed to evaluate whether the administration of formal ACP improves compliance with patients' end-of-life (EOL) wishes and patient and family satisfaction with care. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A randomised control trial in eight oncology centres across New South Wales and Victoria, Australia, is designed to assess the efficacy of a formal ACP intervention for patients with cancer. Patients with incurable cancer and an expected survival of 3-12 months, plus a nominated family member or friend will be randomised to receive either standard care or standard care plus a formal ACP intervention. The project sample size is 210 patient-family/friend dyads. The primary outcome measure is family/friend-reported: (1) discussion with the patient about their EOL wishes and (2) perception that the patient's EOL wishes were met. Secondary outcome measures include: documentation of and compliance with patient preferences for medical intervention at the EOL; the family/friend's perception of the quality of the patient's EOL care; the impact of death on surviving family; patient-family and patient-healthcare provider communication about EOL care; patient and family/friend satisfaction with care; quality of life of patient and family/friend subsequent to trial entry, the patient's strength of preferences for quality of life and length of life; the costs of care subsequent to trial entry and place of death. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval was received from the Sydney Local Health District (RPA Zone) Human Research Ethical Committee, Australia (Protocol number X13-0064). Study results will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals and presented at national and international conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Pre-results; ACTRN12613001288718.

Indexed as

Advance Care PlanningPatient PreferenceQuality of Health CareTerminal CareCommunicationDeathFamilyHumansNeoplasmsPatient ParticipationPractice Patterns, Nurses'Professional-Family RelationsProfessional-Patient RelationsQuality of LifeResearch DesignAdvance care planningAdvance DirectiveEnd of LifeRandomised controlled trial

Identifiers

PMID27909034
PMCPMC5168675
OpenAlexW2558934237

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.