ArticleBMJ open2023
Preferences about place of end-of-life care and death of patients with life-threatening illnesses and their families: a protocol for an umbrella review.
Article in BMJ open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Spiritual intelligence and family caregivers' self-efficacy in end-of-life: a cross-sectional study.BMC palliative care · 2026Article
- Public understanding of palliative care and preferences for place of end-of-life care and death: A national population-based latent class analysis.Palliative care and social practice · 2026Article
- Review
- The rise of home death in the COVID-19 pandemic: a population-based study of death certificate data for adults from 32 countries, 2012-2021.EClinicalMedicine · 2024Article
- EOLinPLACE: an international research project to reform the way dying places are classified and understood.Palliative care and social practice · 2024Article
- A Review on the Application of Hospice Care in Patients with Advanced Cancer.Patient preference and adherence · 2023Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionFor most of history, the majority of people died at home surrounded by family. However, the global scenario has progressively changed towards hospital death and more recently in some countries back again towards home, with indication that COVID-19 may have further increased the number of home deaths. It is therefore timely to establish the state-of-the-art about people's preferences for place of end-of-life care and death, to understand the full spectrum of preferences, nuances and commonalities worldwide. This protocol describes the methods for an umbrella review which aims to examine and synthesise the available evidence regarding preferences about place of end-of-life care and death of patients with life-threatening illnesses and their families. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will search for relevant systematic reviews (quantitative and/or qualitative) in six databases from inception without language restrictions: PsycINFO, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PROSPERO and Epistemonikos. Following the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology for umbrella reviews, eligibility screening, data extraction and quality assessment (using the JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist) will be done by two independent reviewers. We will report the screening process using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses flow diagram. Study double-counting will be reported using the Graphical Representation of Overlap for OVErviews tool. A narrative synthesis will include 'Summary of Evidence' tables to address five review questions (distribution of preferences and reasons, influencing variables, place of care vs place of death, changes over time, congruence between preferred and actual places), grading the evidence on each question using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) and/or GRADE-Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This review does not require ethical approval. The results will be presented at conferences and published in a peer-reviewed journal. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42022339983.
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.