Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36806204›Full record

ReviewClinical medicine (London, England)2023

Challenges to delivering evidence-based palliative medicine.

Caroline Barry, Paul Paes, Simon Noble, Andrew Davies

Open access · diamondAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Clinical medicine (London, England), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
2.3field-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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

4 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Caroline BarryNorfolk and Norwich NHS Foundation Trust, Norwich, UK, and clinical associate professor in translational and clinical medicine, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK caroline.barry@nnuh.nhs.uk.
Paul PaesNorthumbria Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust, Northumbria, UK.
Simon NobleCardiff University, Cardiff, UK.
Andrew DaviesTrinity College Dublin, University College Dublin and Our Lady's Hospice, Dublin, Ireland.
Cardiff University · GBNorthumbria Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust · GBOur Lady's Hospital · IEUniversity of East Anglia · GB

Funding

Marie Curie MCCC-FCO-11-C
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Established as a medical specialty in 1987, palliative medicine approaches middle age facing existential questions of identity, purpose and vision. Time has weakened strong foundations laid by Dame Cicely Saunders in research, education and clinical excellence. Clinical knowledge gaps are wide, and widening. Palliative medicine research is underfunded and underrepresented in discourse. Despite huge advances in modern medicine, there is still clinical uncertainty about simple interventions, such as whether artificial hydration at the end of life is helpful or harmful. Where good quality data do exist, the pace of change is slow, if change is happening at all. Trial design often fails to assess the holistic impact of interventions, using primary endpoints that are inconsistent with outcomes most valued to the patient. Recent years have seen a rapid expansion in innovation and investment in digital technologies, embraced by many in palliative medicine. Experience shows that caution must be applied where the evidence base is sparse. While as a specialty we must remain forward looking and progressive in our mindset, it cannot be assumed that these new interventions alone will provide the solutions to the old problems that exist in palliative medicine.This review summarises the key points presented in the Palliative Medicine section of the RCP Clinical Medicine Conference, 2022.

Indexed as

Clinical MedicinePalliative MedicineClinical Decision-MakingEvidence-Based MedicineHumansMiddle AgedPalliative CareUncertaintyartificial intelligenceclinical trialsevidence basedpalliativevirtual ward

Identifiers

PMID36806204
PMCPMC11046501
OpenAlexW4321372604

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.