ArticleBMC palliative care2023
Interrater agreement of multi-professional case review as reference standard for specialist palliative care need: a mixed-methods study.
Article in BMC palliative care, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundA wide variety of screening tools for the need for specialist palliative care (SPC) have been proposed for the use in oncology. However, as there is no established reference standard for SPC need to compare their results with, their sensitivity and specificity have not yet been determined. The aim of the study was to explore whether SPC need assessment by means of multi-professional case review has sufficient interrater agreement to be employed as a reference standard.
methodsComprehensive case descriptions were prepared for 20 inpatients with advanced oncologic disease at the University Hospital Freiburg (Germany). All cases were presented to the palliative care teams of three different hospitals in independent, multi-professional case review sessions. The teams assessed whether patients had support needs in nine categories and subsequently concluded SPC need (yes / no). Interrater agreement regarding SPC need was determined by calculating Fleiss' Kappa.
resultsIn 17 out of 20 cases the three teams agreed regarding their appraisal of SPC need (substantial interrater agreement: Fleiss' Kappa κ = 0.80 (95% CI: 0.55-1.0; p < 0.001)). The number of support needs was significantly lower for patients who all teams agreed had no SPC need than for those with agreed SPC need.
conclusionsThe proposed expert case review process shows sufficient reliability to be used as a reference standard. Key elements of the case review process (e.g. clear definition of SPC need, standardized review of the patients' support needs) and possible modifications to simplify the process are discussed.
trial registrationGerman Clinical Trials Register, DRKS00021686, registered 17.12.2020.
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.