Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35480601›Full record

ArticleExploratory research in clinical and social pharmacy2021

Prescribing practices, patterns, and potential harms in patients receiving palliative care: A systematic scoping review.

Cathal A Cadogan, Melanie Murphy, Miriam Boland, Kathleen Bennett, Sarah McLean, Carmel Hughes

Open access · goldAbstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Exploratory research in clinical and social pharmacy, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.8field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 31 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. The impact of palliative care consults on medicines optimisation for patients with cancer referred to hospice care at the end of life: a retrospective cohort study.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Perspectives on deprescribing in palliative care.Expert review of clinical pharmacology · 2023
    Review
  15. Observational
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 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Cathal A CadoganSchool of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Trinity College Dublin, Ireland.
Melanie MurphySchool of Pharmacy and Biomolecular Sciences, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, Ireland.
Miriam BolandSchool of Pharmacy and Biomolecular Sciences, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, Ireland.
Kathleen BennettDivision of Population Health Sciences, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, Ireland.
Sarah McLeanSt Vincent's Private Hospital, Dublin, Ireland.
Carmel HughesSchool of Pharmacy, Queen's University Belfast, United Kingdom.
Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland · IEQueen's University Belfast · GBSt. Vincent's University Hospital · IETrinity College Dublin · IE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Patients receiving palliative care often have existing comorbidities necessitating the prescribing of multiple medications. To maximize quality of life in this patient cohort, it is important to tailor prescribing of medication for preventing and treating existing illnesses and those for controlling symptoms, such as pain, according to individual specific needs. Objectives: To provide an overview of peer-reviewed observational research on prescribing practices, patterns, and potential harms in patients receiving palliative care. Methods: A systematic scoping review was conducted using four electronic databases (PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science). Each database was searched from inception to May 2020. Search terms included 'palliative care,' 'end of life,' and 'prescribing.' Eligible studies had to examine prescribing for adults (≥18 years) receiving palliative care in any setting as a study aim or outcome. Studies focusing on single medication types (e.g., opioids), medication classes (e.g., chemotherapy), or clinical indications (e.g., pain) were excluded. The review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines for scoping reviews, and the findings were described using narrative synthesis. Results: Following deduplication, 16,565 unique citations were reviewed, and 56 studies met inclusion criteria. The average number of prescribed medications per patient ranged from 3 to 23. Typically, prescribing changes involved decreases in preventative medications and increases in symptom-specific medications closer to the time of death. Twenty-one studies assessed the appropriateness of prescribing using various tools. The prevalence of patients with ≥1 potentially inappropriate prescription ranged from 15 to 92%. Three studies reported on adverse drug events. Conclusions: This scoping review provides a broad overview of existing research and shows that many patients receiving palliative care receive multiple medications closer to the time of death. Future research should focus in greater detail on prescribing appropriateness using tools specifically developed to guide prescribing in palliative care and the potential for harm.

Indexed as

Cohort studiesObservationalPalliative carePrescribingScoping review

Identifiers

PMID35480601
PMCPMC9031741
OpenAlexW3186136201

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.