Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28122560›Full record

SynthesisBMC palliative care2017

Clinical trials in palliative care: a systematic review of their methodological characteristics and of the quality of their reporting.

Raquel Bouça-Machado, Madalena Rosário, Joana Alarcão, Leonor Correia-Guedes, Daisy Abreu, Joaquim J Ferreira

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC palliative care, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 42 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
42citing papers in PubMed, 5 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

42 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  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

6 authors.

Raquel Bouça-MachadoClinical Pharmacology Unit, Instituto de Medicina Molecular, Faculty of Medicine, University of Lisbon, Avenue Professor Egas Moniz, 1649-028, Lisbon, Portugal.
Madalena RosárioClinical Pharmacology Unit, Instituto de Medicina Molecular, Faculty of Medicine, University of Lisbon, Avenue Professor Egas Moniz, 1649-028, Lisbon, Portugal.
Joana AlarcãoCenter for Evidence-Based Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Lisbon, Avenue Professor Egas Moniz, 1649-028, Lisbon, Portugal.
Leonor Correia-GuedesClinical Pharmacology Unit, Instituto de Medicina Molecular, Faculty of Medicine, University of Lisbon, Avenue Professor Egas Moniz, 1649-028, Lisbon, Portugal.
Daisy AbreuClinical Pharmacology Unit, Instituto de Medicina Molecular, Faculty of Medicine, University of Lisbon, Avenue Professor Egas Moniz, 1649-028, Lisbon, Portugal.
Joaquim J FerreiraClinical Pharmacology Unit, Instituto de Medicina Molecular, Faculty of Medicine, University of Lisbon, Avenue Professor Egas Moniz, 1649-028, Lisbon, Portugal. joaquimjferreira@gmail.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOver the past decades there has been a significant increase in the number of published clinical trials in palliative care. However, empirical evidence suggests that there are methodological problems in the design and conduct of studies, which raises questions about the validity and generalisability of the results and of the strength of the available evidence. We sought to evaluate the methodological characteristics and assess the quality of reporting of clinical trials in palliative care.

methodsWe performed a systematic review of published clinical trials assessing therapeutic interventions in palliative care. Trials were identified using MEDLINE (from its inception to February 2015). We assessed methodological characteristics and describe the quality of reporting using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool.

resultsWe retrieved 107 studies. The most common medical field studied was oncology, and 43.9% of trials evaluated pharmacological interventions. Symptom control and physical dimensions (e.g. intervention on pain, breathlessness, nausea) were the palliative care-specific issues most studied. We found under-reporting of key information in particular on random sequence generation, allocation concealment, and blinding.

conclusionsWhile the number of clinical trials in palliative care has increased over time, methodological quality remains suboptimal. This compromises the quality of studies. Therefore, a greater effort is needed to enable the appropriate performance of future studies and increase the robustness of evidence-based medicine in this important field.

Indexed as

Clinical Trials as TopicData AccuracyHumansMedicineOutcome and Process Assessment, Health CarePalliative CareResearch DesignSample SizeSurveys and QuestionnairesClinical trialsMethodological qualityPalliative careRisk of bias

Identifiers

PMID28122560
PMCPMC5264484

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.