Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36443700›Full record

ArticleBMC palliative care2022

Development of the palliative care referral system: proposal of a tool for the referral of cancer patients to specialized palliative care.

Alessandra Pigni, Sara Alfieri, Augusto Tommaso Caraceni, Ernesto Zecca, Viviana Fusetti, Antonino Tallarita, Cinzia Brunelli

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC palliative care, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Assessing the sensitivity and acceptability of the Royal Marsden Palliative Care Referral "Triggers" Tool for outpatients with cancer.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2024
    Article
  7. 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

7 authors.

Alessandra Pigni *Palliative care, Pain Therapy and Rehabilitation Unit, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan, Italy.
Sara Alfieri *Clinical Psychology Unit, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan, Italy.
Augusto Tommaso CaraceniPalliative care, Pain Therapy and Rehabilitation Unit, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan, Italy. augusto.caraceni@istitutotumori.mi.it.
Ernesto ZeccaPalliative care, Pain Therapy and Rehabilitation Unit, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan, Italy.
Viviana FusettiPalliative care, Pain Therapy and Rehabilitation Unit, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan, Italy.
Antonino TallaritaPalliative care, Pain Therapy and Rehabilitation Unit, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan, Italy.
Cinzia BrunelliPalliative care, Pain Therapy and Rehabilitation Unit, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundEarly palliative care (PC) has shown beneficial effects for advanced cancer patients. However, it is still debated what criteria to use to identify patients for PC referral.

aimTo document the initial steps of the development of the Palliative Care Referral System (PCRS), a tool to be used by oncologists in clinical practice.

methodsA multiprofessional working group developed the PCRS based on the results of a scoping literature review on PC referral criteria. PCRS criteria were evaluated by experts via a nominal group technique (NGT). Descriptive statistics were used to summarize expert scores on relevance, appropriateness and perceived feasibility of the criteria proposed. Quotations of participants during the discussion were also reported.

resultsSixteen studies, including PC referral criteria/tools, emerged from the scoping review. Severe symptoms, poor performance status, comorbidities and prognosis were the most commonly used criteria. The PCRS included nine major criteria and nine assessment methods; a scoring procedure was also proposed. Answers to the questionnaire during the NGT showed that five criteria reached full agreement on all items, while four did not, and were then discussed within the group. Participants agreed on the relevance of all criteria and on the appropriateness of methods proposed to assess most of them, while issues were raised about potential feasibility of the overall assessment of the PCRS in clinical practice.

conclusionThe PCRS has been developed as an help for oncologists to timely identify patients for specialized PC referral. Since feasibility emerged as the main concern, implementation strategies have to be tested in subsequent studies.

Indexed as

Hospice and Palliative Care NursingNeoplasmsOncologistsHumansPalliative CareReferral and ConsultationConsultationNeoplasmNominal group techniquePalliative careReferral

Identifiers

PMID36443700
PMCPMC9816370

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.