Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31842886›Full record

ArticleHealth research policy and systems2019

Palliative Care Evidence Review Service (PaCERS): a knowledge transfer partnership.

Mala Mann, Amanda Woodward, Annmarie Nelson, Anthony Byrne

Abstract readLetter
In one paragraph

Article in Health research policy and systems, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 4 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. A systematic review of the implementation of cancer-specific holistic needs assessment (HNA) in adult clinical practice, and applicability to the brain tumour population.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. 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

4 authors.

Mala MannSpecialist Unit for Review Evidence, Cardiff University, Heath Park, Cardiff, CF14 4YS, United Kingdom. mannmk@cardiff.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2554-9265
Amanda WoodwardWales Cancer Research Centre, Marie Curie Palliative Care Research Centre, Division of Population Medicine, School of Medicine, Cardiff University, Heath Park, Cardiff, United Kingdom.
Annmarie NelsonWales Cancer Research Centre, Marie Curie Palliative Care Research Centre, Division of Population Medicine, School of Medicine, Cardiff University, Heath Park, Cardiff, United Kingdom.
Anthony ByrneWales Cancer Research Centre, Marie Curie Palliative Care Research Centre, Division of Population Medicine, School of Medicine, Cardiff University, Heath Park, Cardiff, United Kingdom.

Funding

Marie Curie Cancer Care MCCC-FCO-11-CWales Cancer Research Centre funded by Health and Care Research Wales WCRC514031).
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The importance of linking evidence into practice and policy is recognised as a key pillar of a prudent approach to healthcare; it is of importance to healthcare professionals and decision-makers across the world in every speciality. However, rapid access to evidence to support service redesign, or to change practice at pace, is challenging. This is particularly so in smaller specialties such as Palliative Care, where pressured multidisciplinary clinicians lack time and skill sets to locate and appraise the literature relevant to a particular area. Therefore, we have initiated the Palliative Care Evidence Review Service (PaCERS), a knowledge transfer partnership through which we have developed a clear methodology to conduct evidence reviews to support professionals and other decision-makers working in palliative care.PaCERS methodology utilises modified systematic review methods as there is no agreed definition or an accepted methodology for conducting rapid reviews. This paper describes the stages involved based on our iterative recent experiences and engagement with stakeholders, who are the potential beneficiaries of the research. Uniquely, we emphasise the process and opportunities of engagement with the clinical workforce and policy-makers throughout the review, from developing and refining the review question at the start through to the importance of demonstrating impact. We are faced with the challenge of the trade-off between the timely transfer of evidence against the risk of impacting on rigour. To address this issue, we try to ensure transparency throughout the review process. Our methodology aligns with key principles of knowledge synthesis in defining a process that is transparent, robust and improving the efficiency and timeliness of the review.Our reviews are clinically or policy driven and, although we use modified systematic review methods, one of the key differences between published review processes and our review process is in our relationship with the requester. This streamlining approach to synthesising evidence in a timely manner helps to inform decisions faced by clinicians and decision-makers in healthcare settings, supporting, at pace, knowledge transfer and mobilisation.

Indexed as

Cooperative BehaviorEvidence-Based MedicineHumansPalliative CareTranslational Research, Biomedicalevidence-basedknowledge transfermethodologypalliative carepartnershipRapid reviewsystematic review

Identifiers

PMID31842886
PMCPMC6916007

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.