Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34652465›Full record

SynthesisIntensive care medicine2021

Palliative care interventions in intensive care unit patients.

Victoria Metaxa, Despina Anagnostou, Savvas Vlachos, Nishkantha Arulkumaran, Sherihane Bensemmane, Ingeborg van Dusseldorp, Rebecca A Aslakson, Judy E Davidson, Rik T Gerritsen, Christiane Hartog and 1 more

Erratum issuedAbstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Intensive care medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 43 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
43citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
14.3field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

43 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 100 citations in OpenAlex.

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

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors at 9 institutions in 6 countries.

Victoria MetaxaKing's College Hospital, London, SE5 9RS, UK. victoria.metaxa@nhs.net.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4232-6845
Despina AnagnostouSchool of Medicine, Human Health Sciences, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan.
Savvas VlachosKing's College Hospital, London, SE5 9RS, UK.
Nishkantha ArulkumaranBloomsbury Institute of Intensive Care Medicine, University College London, London, UK.
Sherihane BensemmaneHealth Services Research, Epidemiology and Public Health, Sciensano, Brussels, Belgium.
Ingeborg van Dusseldorpvan Dusseldorp, Delvaux en Ket, Groningen, The Netherlands.
Rebecca A AslaksonDivision of Primary Care and Population Health, Department of Medicine, Palliative Care Section, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, 94305, USA.
Judy E DavidsonDepartment of Nursing, University of California, San Diego Health Sciences, San Diego, USA.
Rik T GerritsenCentrum voor Intensive Care, Medisch Centrum Leeuwarden, PO Box 888, 8901 BR, Leeuwarden, The Netherlands.
Christiane HartogKlinik Bavaria Kreischa, Kreischa, Germany.
J Randall CurtisDivision of Pulmonary, Critical Care and Sleep Medicine, Cambia Palliative Care Center of Excellence at UW Medicine, University of Washington, 325 Ninth Avenue, Box 359762, Seattle, WA, 98104, USA.
King's College Hospital · GBBury College · GBKlinik Bavaria · DEKyoto University · JPMedisch Centrum Leeuwarden · NLSciensano (Belgium) · BEStanford University · USUniversity of California San Diego · USUniversity of Washington · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe integration of palliative care into intensive care units (ICUs) is advocated to mitigate physical and psychological burdens for patients and their families, and to improve end-of-life care. The most efficacious palliative care interventions, the optimal model of their delivery and the most appropriate outcome measures in ICU are not clear.

methodsWe conducted a systematic review of randomised clinical trials and observational studies to evaluate the number and types of palliative care interventions implemented within the ICU setting, to assess their impact on ICU practice and to evaluate differences in palliative care approaches across different countries.

resultsFifty-eight full articles were identified, including 9 randomised trials and 49 cohort studies; all but 4 were conducted within North America. Interventions were categorised into five themes: communication (14, 24.6%), ethics consultations (5, 8.8%), educational (18, 31.6%), involvement of a palliative care team (28, 49.1%) and advance care planning or goals-of-care discussions (7, 12.3%). Thirty studies (51.7%) proposed an integrative model, whilst 28 (48.3%) reported a consultative one. The most frequently reported outcomes were ICU or hospital length of stay (33/55, 60%), limitation of life-sustaining treatment decisions (22/55, 40%) and mortality (15/55, 27.2%). Quantitative assessment of pooled data was not performed due to heterogeneity in interventions and outcomes between studies.

conclusionBeneficial effects on the most common outcomes were associated with strategies to enhance palliative care involvement, either with an integrative or a consultative approach. Few studies reported functional outcomes for ICU patients. Almost all studies were from North America, limiting the generalisability to other healthcare systems.

Indexed as

Advance Care PlanningTerminal CareCritical CareHumansIntensive Care UnitsObservational Studies as TopicPalliative CareRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicCritical careEnd-of-life carePalliative care

Identifiers

PMID34652465
OpenAlexW3206980337

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.