Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39038991›Full record

ArticleBMJ supportive & palliative care2024

Supportive care interventions in metastatic bone disease: scoping review.

Samuel K Simister, Rahul Bhale, Amy M Cizik, Barton L Wise, Steven W Thorpe, Betty Ferrell, R Lor Randall, Alex Fauer

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ supportive & palliative care, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
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

8 authors.

Samuel K SimisterDepartment of Orthopaedics, University of California Davis, Sacramento, California, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6441-7815
Rahul BhaleDepartment of Orthopaedics, University of California Davis, Sacramento, California, USA.
Amy M CizikDepartment of Orthopaedics, University of Utah Health, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA.
Barton L WiseDepartment of Orthopaedics, University of California Davis, Sacramento, California, USA.
Steven W ThorpeDepartment of Orthopaedics, University of California Davis, Sacramento, California, USA.
Betty FerrellNursing Research and Education, City of Hope, Duarte, California, USA.
R Lor RandallDepartment of Orthopaedics, University of California Davis, Sacramento, California, USA.
Alex FauerBetty Irene Moore School of Nursing, University of California Davis, Sacramento, California, USA ajfauer@ucdavis.edu.

Funding

UC Davis Paul Calabresi K12 Clinical Oncology Research Career Development ProgramK12CA138464 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT DAVIS · PI BIRKELAND, ANDREW CHARLES, LARA, PRIMO N. · 2011 to 2025
$11.4M
NCI NIH HHS K12 CA138464
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPatients with secondary metastatic involvement of the musculoskeletal system due to primary cancers are a rapidly growing population with significant risks for health-related end-of-life morbidities. In particular, bone metastases or metastatic bone disease (MBD) imparts significant adversity to remaining quality of life. No rigorous review of clinical trials on the use of supportive care interventions for MBD has been conducted. The objective of this review was to examine the characteristics of supportive care interventions for MBD and critically appraise study designs, key findings, and quality of evidence of the research.

methodsWe searched for published clinical trials, systematic reviews and meta-analyses in PubMED, CINAHL and Google Scholar for articles published between September 2017 and September 2022. Some examples of Medical Subject Headings terms were: 'secondary neoplasm', 'metastatic bone disease', 'palliative care' and 'supportive care intervention'. Quality of published evidence was evaluated based on treatment types and study design.

resultsAfter reviewing 572 publications, 13 articles were included in the final review and evaluation including seven clinical trials, two trial protocols and four systematic reviews. Feasible interventions included enhanced palliative care consultation, palliative radiotherapy and alternative medicines. Interventions addressed primary endpoints of fatigue (N=4, 31%), pain (N=3, 23%) or cancer-related symptoms (N=3, 23%) with patient-reported outcome instruments. No interventions reported on fracture complications or endpoints, specifically. The quality of most studies was moderate to strong.

conclusionSupportive care interventions for MBD are feasible and the impact is measurable via patient-reported outcome measures. While the evidence for interventions was moderate to strong, there are very few specific controlled trials for skeletal-related events and impacts of social determinants of health. Further clinical trials are needed to define supportive care interventions for MBD that demonstrate reduced risk of fracture and that mitigate the reduced quality of life when negative musculoskeletal outcomes arise.

Indexed as

BoneFatiguePainPalliative CareSpiritual careSupportive care

Identifiers

PMID39038991
PMCPMC12017890

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.