ArticleBMJ open2022
Intercountry and intracountry variations in opinions of palliative care specialist physicians in Germany, Italy, Japan and UK about continuous use of sedatives: an international cross-sectional survey.
Article in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Use of sedative drugs in specialist palliative care (iSedPall): a multi-modal intervention pilot study protocol.Pilot and feasibility studies · 2025Article
- Sedation in Palliative Care—a Clinically Oriented Overview of Guidelines and Treatment RecommendationsDeutsches Arzteblatt international · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
15 authors at 12 institutions in 7 countries.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo explore intercountry and intracountry differences in physician opinions about continuous use of sedatives (CUS), and factors associated with their approval of CUS. SETTINGS: Secondary analysis of a questionnaire study.
participantsPalliative care physicians in Germany (N=273), Italy (N=198), Japan (N=334) and the UK (N=111). PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Physician approval for CUS in four situations, intention and treatment goal, how to use sedatives and beliefs about CUS.
resultsThere were no significant intercountry or intracountry differences in the degree of agreement with statements that (1) CUS is not necessary as suffering can always be relieved with other measures (mostly disagree); (2) intention of CUS is to alleviate suffering and (3) shortening the dying process is not intended. However, there were significant intercountry differences in agreement with statements that (1) CUS is acceptable for patients with longer survival or psychoexistential suffering; (2) decrease in consciousness is intended and (3) choice of neuroleptics or opioids. Acceptability of CUS for patients with longer survival or psychoexistential suffering and whether decrease in consciousness is intended also showed wide intracountry differences. Also, the proportion of physicians who agreed versus disagreed with the statement that CUS may not alleviate suffering adequately even in unresponsive patients, was approximately equal. Regression analyses revealed that both physician-related and country-related factors were independently associated with physicians' approval of CUS.
conclusionVariations in use of sedatives is due to both physician- and country-related factors, but palliative care physicians consistently agree on the value of sedatives to aid symptom control. Future research should focus on (1) whether sedatives should be used in patients with longer survival or with primarily psychoexistential suffering, (2) understanding physicians' intentions and treatment goals, (3) efficacy of different drugs and (4) understanding the actual experiences of patients receiving CUS.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.