Observational studyBMJ open2023
Continuous palliative sedation in terminally ill patients with cancer: a retrospective observational cohort study from a Chinese palliative care unit.
Observational study in BMJ open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study aimed to describe a 4-year practice of continuous palliative sedation (CPS) in a palliative medicine ward of an academic hospital in China. To compare the survival time of patients with cancer with and without CPS during end-of-life care, we used the propensity score matching method and explored potential patient-related factors.
designA retrospective observational cohort study.
settingThe palliative ward at a tertiary teaching hospital between January 2018 and 10 May 2022, in Chengdu, Sichuan, China.
participantsThe palliative care unit had 1445 deaths. We excluded 283 patients who were sedated on admission due to mechanical ventilation or non-invasive ventilators, 122 patients who were sedated due to epilepsy and sleep disorders, 69 patients without cancer, 26 patients who were younger than 18 years, 435 patients with end-of-life intervention when the patients' vital signs were unstable and 5 patients with unavailable medical records. Finally, we included 505 patients with cancer who met our requirements.
main outcome measuresThe survival time and analysis of sedation potential factors between the two groups were compared.
resultsThe total prevalence of CPS was 39.7%. Patients who were sedated more commonly experienced delirium, dyspnoea, refractory existential or psychological distress, and pain. After propensity score matching, the median survival was 10 (IQR: 5-17.75) and 9 days (IQR: 4-16) with and without CPS, respectively. After matching, the two survival curves of the sedated and non-sedated groups were no different (HR 0.82; 95% CI 0.64 to 0.84; log-rank p=0.10).
conclusionsDeveloping countries also practise palliative sedation. Median survival was not different between patients who were and were not sedated.
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.