Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32865674›Full record

ArticleSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2021

How palliative care professionals deal with predicting life expectancy at the end of life: predictors and accuracy.

Sara Mandelli, Emma Riva, Mauro Tettamanti, Ugo Lucca, Davide Lombardi, Gianmaria Miolo, Simon Spazzapan, Rita Marson, Via di Natale Hospice investigators

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Factors related to accurate clinicians' prediction of survival: an international multicenter study in East Asia.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2024
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

9 authors.

Sara MandelliLaboratory of Geriatric Neuropsychiatry, Istituto di Ricerche Farmacologiche Mario Negri IRCCS, Via Mario Negri 2, 20156, Milan, Italy. sara.mandelli@marionegri.it.
Emma RivaLaboratory of Geriatric Neuropsychiatry, Istituto di Ricerche Farmacologiche Mario Negri IRCCS, Via Mario Negri 2, 20156, Milan, Italy.
Mauro TettamantiLaboratory of Geriatric Neuropsychiatry, Istituto di Ricerche Farmacologiche Mario Negri IRCCS, Via Mario Negri 2, 20156, Milan, Italy.
Ugo LuccaLaboratory of Geriatric Neuropsychiatry, Istituto di Ricerche Farmacologiche Mario Negri IRCCS, Via Mario Negri 2, 20156, Milan, Italy.
Davide LombardiVia di Natale Hospice, Aviano, Pordenone, Italy.
Gianmaria MioloVia di Natale Hospice, Aviano, Pordenone, Italy.
Simon SpazzapanVia di Natale Hospice, Aviano, Pordenone, Italy.
Rita MarsonVia di Natale Hospice, Aviano, Pordenone, Italy.
Via di Natale Hospice investigators

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo assess the accuracy of hospice staff in predicting survival of subjects admitted to hospice, exploring the factors considered most helpful by the hospice staff to accurately predict survival.

methodsFive physicians and 11 nurses were asked to predict survival at admission of 827 patients. Actual and predicted survival times were divided into ≤ 1 week, 2-3 weeks, 4-8 weeks, and ≥ 2 months and the accuracy of the estimates was calculated. The staff members were each asked to score 17 clinical variables that guided them in predicting survival and we analyzed how these variables impacted the accuracy.

resultsPhysicians' and nurses' accuracy of survival of the patients was 46% and 40% respectively. Survival was underestimated in 20% and 12% and overestimated in 34% and 48% of subjects. Both physicians and nurses considered metastases, comorbidities, dyspnea, disability, tumor site, neurological symptoms, and confusion very important in predicting patients' survival with nurses assigning more importance to intestinal symptoms and pain too. All these factors, with the addition of cough and/or bronchial secretions, were associated with physicians' greater accuracy. In the multivariable models, intestinal symptoms and confusion continued to be associated with greater predictive accuracy. No factors appreciably raised nurses' accuracy.

conclusionsSome clinical symptoms rated as relevant by the hospice staff could be important for predicting survival. However, only intestinal symptoms and confusion significantly improved the accuracy of physicians' predictions, despite the high prevalence of overestimated survival.

Indexed as

Data AccuracyDeathAgedFemaleHumansLife ExpectancyMalePalliative CareProspective StudiesAccuracyHospiceObservational studySurvival predictionTerminally ill

Identifiers

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.