Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30854933›Full record

SynthesisPalliative medicine2019

A systematic review and critical appraisal of quality indicators to assess optimal palliative care for older people with dementia.

Sarah Amador, Elizabeth L Sampson, Claire Goodman, Louise Robinson, SEED Research Team

Open access · bronzeAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Palliative medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
3.1field-weighted citation impact, top 9% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 28 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. 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

5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Sarah Amador1 Marie Curie Palliative Care Research Department, Division of Psychiatry, University College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-4196-6410
Elizabeth L Sampson1 Marie Curie Palliative Care Research Department, Division of Psychiatry, University College London, London, UK.
Claire Goodman2 Centre for Research in Primary and Community Care, University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield, UK.
Louise Robinson3 Institute for Ageing and Institute of Health & Society, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne, UK.
SEED Research Team
University College London · GBNewcastle University · GBUniversity of Hertfordshire · GB

Funding

Department of Health HTA/12/192/10Department of Health RP-PG-0611-20005Marie Curie MCCC-FCO-11-U
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundA challenge for commissioners and providers of end-of-life care in dementia is to translate recommendations for good or effective care into quality indicators that inform service development and evaluation.

aimTo identify and critically evaluate quality indicators for end-of-life care in dementia.

resultsWe found 8657 references, after de-duplication. In all, 19 publications describing 10 new and 3 updated sets of indicators were included in this review. Ultimately, 246 individual indicators were identified as being relevant to dementia end-of-life care and mapped against EAPC guidelines.

conclusionsWe systematically derived and assessed a set of quality indicators using a robust framework that provides clear definitions of aspects of palliative care, which are dementia specific, and strengthens the theoretical underpinning of new complex interventions in end-of-life care in dementia.

Indexed as

DementiaPalliative CareQuality Indicators, Health CareHumansQualitative ResearchTerminal Caredementiaend-of-life carehealthcarepalliative carequality indicatorsSystematic reviewterminal care

Identifiers

PMID30854933
PMCPMC6439949
OpenAlexW2922019216

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.