ArticleBMC palliative care2023
A comparison of palliative care and rapid emergency screening (P-CaRES) tool, broad and narrow criteria, and surprise questions to predict survival of older emergency department patients.
Article in BMC palliative care, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Geriatric Emergency Medicine in Southeast Asia: insights from Singapore, Thailand, Malaysia and Indonesia.Singapore medical journal · 2026Article
- A pilot study of the Palliative Care and Rapid Emergency Screening (P-CaRES) tool to screen older emergency department patients for palliative care in Malaysia.Internal and emergency medicine · 2026Article
- Prevalence of patients with unmet palliative care needs in a University Emergency Department in Germany - a cross-sectional screening study.BMC palliative care · 2025Article
- Validation of the Palliative Care and Rapid Emergency Screening (P-CaRES) Tool in Germany.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Missed Opportunity to Diagnose Palliative Care Need Among Older Emergency Department Patients in a Middle-Income Country: A Retrospective Study.Open access emergency medicine : OAEM · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPalliative care is a form of medical care designed to enhance the quality of life of patients with life-threatening conditions. This study was conducted to compare the accuracy of predicted survival the 1 and 3-month survival rate of Broad and narrow criteria, Surprise questions (SQ), and Palliative Care and Rapid Emergency Screening (P-CaRES) after admission to the emergency department (ED).
methodsThis prospective cohort study was conducted at an urban teaching hospital in Thailand. Patients aged ≥ 65 years admitted to the ED were classified according to their emergency severity index (ESI) (Level: 1-3). We collected data on SQ, P-CaRES, and broad and narrow criteria. A survival data of participants were collected at 1 and 3 months after admission to the ED. The survival rate was calculated using the Kaplan-Meier and log-rank tests.
resultsA total of 269 patients completed the study. P-CaRES positive and P-CaRES negative patients had 1-month survival rates of 81% and 94.8%, respectively (P = 0.37), and at 3-month survival rates of 70.7% and 90.1%, respectively (P < 0.001). SQ (not surprised) had a 1-month survival rate of 79.3%, while SQ (surprised) had a 97% survival rate (P = 0.01), and SQ (not surprised) had a 75.4% survival rate at 3-months, while SQ (surprised) had a 96.3% survival rate (P = 0.01). Broad and narrow criteria that were positive and negative had 1-month survival rates of 88.1% and 92.5%, respectively (P = 0.71), while those that were positive and negative had 3-month survival rates of 78.6% and 87.2%, respectively (P = 0.19). The hazard ratio (HR) of SQ (not surprised) at 1 month was 3.22( 95%CI:1.16-8.89). The HR at 3 months of P-CaRES (positive) was 3.31 with a 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.74 - 6.27, while the HR for SQ (not surprise) was 7.33, 95% CI: 3.03-19.79; however, broad and narrow criteria had an HR of 1.78, 95% CI:0.84-3.77.
conclusionsAmong older adults who visited the ED, the SQ were good prognosis tools for predicting 1 and 3-month survival, and P-CaRES were good prognostic tools for predicting 3-month survival.
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.