ArticleBMC palliative care2025
Determining timeframes to death for imminently dying patients: a retrospective cohort study.
Article in BMC palliative care, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Dying as a 'normal', 'ordinary' or 'natural' process in palliative care: a systematic scoping review and narrative synthesis.BMC palliative care · 2026Article
- Specialist Palliative Care Service Involvement and Prognostic Factors in Patients Presenting With Acute Limb Ischaemia to Waikato Hospital, Hamilton, New Zealand: A Retrospective Review.International journal of vascular medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundClinicians are frequently asked 'how long' questions at end-of-life by patients and those important to them, yet predicting timeframes to death remains uncertain, even in the last weeks and days of life. Patients and families wish to know so they can ask questions, plan, make decisions, have time to visit and say their goodbyes, and have holistic care needs met. Consequently, this necessitates a more accurate assessment of empirical data to better inform prognostication and reduce uncertainty around time until death. The aims of this study were to determine the timeframes for palliative care patients (a) between becoming comatose and death, and (b) between being totally dependent and bedfast, and then comatose, or death, using Australia-modified Karnofsky Performance Status (AKPS) scores. The secondary aim was to determine if covariates predicted timeframes.
methodThis is a large retrospective cohort study of 2,438 patients, 18 years and over, cared for as hospice inpatients or by community palliative care services, died between January 2017 and December 2021, and who collectively had 49,842 AKPS data points. An Interval-Censored Cox Proportional Hazards regression model was used.
resultsOver 53% (n = 1,306) were comatose (AKPS 10) for longer than one day before death (mean = 2 days, median = 1, SD = 2.0). On average, patients were found to be totally dependent and bedfast (AKPS 20) for 24 days, before progressing to being comatose. A difference in life expectancy was observed at AKPS 20 among people with cancer (mean = 14.4, median = 2, SD = 38.8) and those who did not have cancer (mean = 53.3, median = 5, SD = 157.1).
conclusionResults provide clinicians with validated data to guide communication when answering 'how long' questions at end-of-life. Knowledge of projected time to death can prompt timely conversations while the patient can understand and engage in meaningful conversations. The importance of considering covariates such as location and diagnosis in determining timeframes has been highlighted. Shared decision-making and essential person-centered end-of-life care can be planned.
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.