ArticleBritish journal of pain2018
A philosophical critique of the UK's National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guideline 'Palliative care for adults: strong opioids for pain relief'.
Article in British journal of pain, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- The meaning of comfort measures only order sets for hospital-based palliative care providers.International journal of qualitative studies on health and well-being · 2022Article
- Optimising a person-centred approach to stopping medicines in older people with multimorbidity and polypharmacy using the DExTruS framework: a realist review.BMC medicine · 2022Review
- Deprescribing medicines in older people living with multimorbidity and polypharmacy: the TAILOR evidence synthesis.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) promotes evidence-based medicine throughout contemporary health care. Its guidelines are employed in the United Kingdom and elsewhere, influencing the type and quality of health care provided. NICE considers a range of evidence in the process of creating guidelines; however, the research accepted as evidence greatly relies on positivist methodologies. At times, it is unnecessarily restricted to quantitative methods of data collection. Using the Clinical Guideline 140, opioids in palliative care, as an example, it is demonstrated that the research accepted as evidence is unable to provide answers to complex problems. In addition, several inherent biases are discussed, such as age inequality and pharmaceutical company influence. In order to provide coherent and useful guidelines relevant to complex problems in a real world setting, NICE must move away from focusing on data from randomised controlled trials. Its epistemological foundation must be questioned, paving the way for alternative research paradigms to be considered as evidence and thereby enriching subsequent guidelines.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.