ArticlePalliative care and social practice2025
The development of a core outcome set for evaluating and enhancing palliative sedation in clinical research and practice: The COSEDATION study protocol.
Article in Palliative care and social practice, 2025. 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.
- Healthcare professionals' perceptions of ethical issues in palliative sedation: A moral case deliberation study in eight European countries.Palliative care and social practice · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The practice of palliative sedation (PS) in end-of-life care has generated significant debate due to concerns about improper application and communication issues. Previous efforts to assess and enhance the practice have often focused on single outcomes, resulting in incomplete evaluations. There is currently no consensus on the core outcomes needed to assess PS effectively. Aim: This study aims to develop a core outcome set (COS) for PS in end-of-life care to enable comprehensive evaluation and improve clinical practice. Design: The study follows the four-stage Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) initiative approach to develop the set of core outcomes. Methods and analysis: First, we will conduct a scoping review to identify potentially relevant outcomes reported in existing peer-reviewed and gray literature. Second, we will employ qualitative methods to explore outcomes valued by patients, their proxies, and healthcare professionals. Third, experts, including researchers, healthcare providers and bereaved relatives, and patient advocates will assess the importance of these outcomes through a Delphi study. Finally, a consensus meeting with stakeholder representatives will refine the COS. Concurrently, measurement instruments for these core outcomes will be identified. Ethics: Ethical clearance was obtained by the Ghent University Hospital Ethics Committee for the whole study (ONZ-2023-0050). Discussion: This study is crucial for establishing a gold-standard measurement instrument to evaluate the multifaceted practice of PS in all its complexity. Providing a standardized set of outcomes will facilitate the design and evaluation of clinical trials, support effective quality improvement initiatives, and inform evidence-based decision-making in healthcare. Engaging all key stakeholders, including dying persons and their families, significantly improving patient care. Furthermore, internationally validated, clinically relevant endpoints will further strengthen research impact and promote consistent, high-quality PS practices worldwide.
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.