Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35322098›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2022

Comparison of intuitive assessment and palliative care screening tool in the early identification of patients needing palliative care.

Yung-Feng Yen, Hsiao-Yun Hu, Yun-Ju Lai, Yi-Chang Chou, Chu-Chieh Chen, Chin-Yu Ho

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2022. 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
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine and Indian Association of Palliative Care Expert Consensus and Position Statements for End-of-life and Palliative Care in the Intensive Care Unit.Indian journal of critical care medicine : peer-reviewed, official publication of Indian Society of Critical Care Medicine · 2024
    Article
  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

6 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.

Yung-Feng Yen *Section of Infectious Diseases, Taipei City Hospital, Yangming Branch, Taipei, Taiwan.
Hsiao-Yun HuInstitute of Public Health, National Yang-Ming University, Taipei, Taiwan.
Yun-Ju LaiDepartment of Health Care Management, National Taipei University of Nursing and Health Sciences, Taipei, Taiwan.
Yi-Chang ChouDepartment of Education and Research, Taipei City Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan.
Chu-Chieh ChenDepartment of Health Care Management, National Taipei University of Nursing and Health Sciences, Taipei, Taiwan.
Chin-Yu Ho *University of Taipei, Taipei, Taiwan. DAG21@tpech.gov.tw.
Ministry of Health and Welfare · TWNational Taipei University of Nursing and Health Science · TWNational Yang Ming Chiao Tung University · TWNational Yang Ming Chiao Tung University · TWSoochow University · TWTaipei City Hospital · TW

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The intuitive assessment of palliative care (PC) needs and Palliative Care Screening Tool (PCST) are the assessment tools used in the early detection of patients requiring PC. However, the comparison of their prognostic accuracies has not been extensively studied. This cohort study aimed to compare the validity of intuitive assessment and PCST in terms of recognizing patients nearing end-of-life (EOL) and those appropriate for PC. All adult patients admitted to Taipei City Hospital from 2016 through 2019 were included in this prospective study. We used both the intuitive assessment of PC and PCST to predict patients' 6-month mortality and identified those appropriate for PC. The c-statistic value was calculated to indicate the predictive accuracies of the intuition and PCST. Of 111,483 patients, 4.5% needed PC by the healthcare workers' intuitive assessment, and 6.7% had a PCST score ≥ 4. After controlling for other covariates, a positive response 'yes' to intuitive assessment of PC needs [adjusted odds ratio (AOR) = 9.89; 95% confidence interval (CI) 914-10.71] and a PCST score ≥ 4 (AOR = 6.59; 95%CI 6.17-7.00) were the independent predictors of 6-month mortality. Kappa statistics showed moderate concordance between intuitive assessment and PCST in predicting patients' 6-month mortality (k = 0.49). The c-statistic values of the PCST at recognizing patients' 6-month mortality was significantly higher than intuition (0.723 vs. 0.679; p < 0.001). As early identification of patients in need of PC could improve the quality of EOL care, our results suggest that it is imperative to screen patients' palliative needs by using a highly accurate screening tool of PCST.

Indexed as

Palliative CareTerminal CareAdultCohort StudiesHumansMass ScreeningProspective Studies

Identifiers

PMID35322098
PMCPMC8943025
OpenAlexW4220725254

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.