Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29736868›Full record

Observational studySupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2018

A pragmatic comparative study of palliative care clinician's reports of the degree of shadowing visible on plain abdominal radiographs.

Katherine Clark, L Lam, N J Talley, G Watts, J L Phillips, N J Byfieldt, D C Currow

Abstract readComparative StudyObservational Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Observational study in Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 34% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Obstipation in pet pigs: 24 cases.The Canadian veterinary journal = La revue veterinaire canadienne · 2021
    Article
  2. 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

7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Katherine ClarkNorthern Sydney Local Health District Cancer and Palliative Care Network, Royal North Shore Hospital, Reserve Rd, St Leonards, NSW, 2065, Australia. Katherine.clark@health.nsw.gov.au.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5438-9064
L LamThe University of Technology, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
N J TalleyThe University of Newcastle, Newcastle, NSW, Australia.
G WattsThe University of Newcastle, Newcastle, NSW, Australia.
J L PhillipsThe University of Technology, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
N J ByfieldtCalvary Mater Newcastle, Newcastle, NSW, Australia.
D C CurrowThe University of Technology, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
University of Technology Sydney · AUCalvary Mater Newcastle Hospital · AUThe University of Sydney · AUUniversity of Newcastle Australia · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The assessment of constipation symptoms is based on history and physical examination. However, the experience is highly subjective perhaps explaining why palliative medicine doctors continue to use plain abdominal radiographs as part of routine assessment of constipation. Previous studies have demonstrated poor agreement between clinicians with this work in palliative care, limited further by disparity of clinicians' experience and training. The aim of this work was to explore whether there was less variation in the assessments of faecal shadowing made by more experienced clinicians compared to their less experienced colleagues. This pragmatic study was conducted across six palliative care services in Sydney (NSW, Australia). Doctors of varying clinical experience were asked to independently report their opinions of the amount of shadowing seen on 10 plain abdominal radiographs all taken from cancer patients who self-identified themselves as constipated. There were 46 doctors of varying clinical experience who participated including qualified specialists, doctors in specialist training and lastly, doctors in their second- and third post-graduate years. Poor agreement was seen between the faecal shadowing scores allocated by doctors of similar experience and training (Fleiss's kappa (FK): RMO 0.05; registrar 0.06; specialist 0.11). Further, when the levels of agreement between groups were considered, no statistically significant differences were observed. Although the doctors did not agree on the appearance of the film, the majority felt they were able to extrapolate patients' experiences from the radiograph's appearance. As it remains challenging in palliative care to objectively assess and diagnose constipation by history and imaging, uniform and objective assessment and diagnostic criteria are required. It is likely that any agreed criteria will include a combination of imaging and history. The results suggest the use of radiographs alone to diagnose and assess constipation in palliative care represents low value care.

Indexed as

Clinical CompetencePalliative CarePhysiciansRadiography, AbdominalAdultAustraliaConstipationDecision MakingFecal ImpactionFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasmsPractice Patterns, Physicians'X-Ray FilmAbdominal radiographsAdvanced cancerConstipationPalliative care

Identifiers

PMID29736868
OpenAlexW2802424831

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.