Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29859532›Full record

ArticleBMC palliative care2018

Introducing PALETTE: an iterative method for conducting a literature search for a review in palliative care.

Marieke Zwakman, Lisa M Verberne, Marijke C Kars, Lotty Hooft, Johannes J M van Delden, René Spijker

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC palliative care, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 10 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 10 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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 10 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

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

Marieke ZwakmanJulius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Stratenum 6.131, PO Box 85500, 3508, GA, Utrecht, Netherlands. m.zwakman@umcutrecht.nl.
Lisa M VerberneJulius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Stratenum 6.131, PO Box 85500, 3508, GA, Utrecht, Netherlands.
Marijke C KarsJulius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Stratenum 6.131, PO Box 85500, 3508, GA, Utrecht, Netherlands.
Lotty HooftJulius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Stratenum 6.131, PO Box 85500, 3508, GA, Utrecht, Netherlands.
Johannes J M van DeldenJulius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Stratenum 6.131, PO Box 85500, 3508, GA, Utrecht, Netherlands.
René SpijkerJulius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Stratenum 6.131, PO Box 85500, 3508, GA, Utrecht, Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn the rapidly developing specialty of palliative care, literature reviews have become increasingly important to inform and improve the field. When applying widely used methods for literature reviews developed for intervention studies onto palliative care, challenges are encountered such as the heterogeneity of palliative care in practice (wide range of domains in patient characteristics, stages of illness and stakeholders), the explorative character of review questions, and the poorly defined keywords and concepts. To overcome the challenges and to provide guidance for researchers to conduct a literature search for a review in palliative care, Palliative cAre Literature rEview iTeraTive mEthod (PALLETE), a pragmatic framework, was developed. We assessed PALETTE with a detailed description.

methodsPALETTE consists of four phases; developing the review question, building the search strategy, validating the search strategy and performing the search. The framework incorporates different information retrieval techniques: contacting experts, pearl growing, citation tracking and Boolean searching in a transparent way to maximize the retrieval of literature relevant to the topic of interest. The different components and techniques are repeated until no new articles are qualified for inclusion. The phases within PALETTE are interconnected by a recurrent process of validation on 'golden bullets' (articles that undoubtedly should be part of the review), citation tracking and concept terminology reflecting the review question. To give insight in the value of PALETTE, we compared PALETTE with the recommended search method for reviews of intervention studies.

resultsBy using PALETTE on two palliative care literature reviews, we were able to improve our review questions and search strategies. Moreover, in comparison with the recommended search for intervention reviews, the number of articles needed to be screened was decreased whereas more relevant articles were retrieved. Overall, PALETTE helped us in gaining a thorough understanding of the topic of interest and made us confident that the included studies comprehensively represented the topic.

conclusionsPALETTE is a coherent and transparent pragmatic framework to overcome the challenges of performing a literature review in palliative care. The method enables researchers to improve question development and to maximise both sensitivity and precision in their search process.

Indexed as

Palliative CareInformation Storage and RetrievalReview Literature as TopicIterative methodLiterature searchPalliative careReview

Identifiers

PMID29859532
PMCPMC5985060

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.