ArticleEClinicalMedicine2025
An umbrella review of patient- and carer-reported measures for assessing adult end-of-life care quality outcomes.
Article in EClinicalMedicine, 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.
- Measuring End-of-Life Care: Development of a National Questionnaire for Bereaved Family Members.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Article
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
Abstract
Background: Assessing end-of-life care quality is important yet selecting measures remains challenging. This umbrella review synthesizes evidence on measures for EOL outcomes-quality of life (QOL), care experience, quality of dying (QOD), and suffering. Methods: We searched five databases for systematic reviews published, 01 January 2009-29 July 2025. Included reviews assessed QOL, care experience, QOD and suffering measures for terminally ill adults and caregivers. We used AMSTAR2 to assess review quality and reported psychometrics per COSMIN. This study is registered on PROSPERO (CRD42024610359). Findings: From 30 reviews, we extracted 161 unique measures: 83 for QOL, 49 for care experience, 15 for QOD, and 14 for suffering. No single measure showed sufficient psychometric robustness. Among generic measures, those with stronger evidence included Palliative Care Outcome Scale (QOL); Family Assessment of Treatment at End-of-life, Care of the Dying Evaluation, and Quality of End-of-Life Care (care experience); Quality of Dying and Death Questionnaire (QOD); and Pictorial Representation of Illness and Self-Measure, and Patient Dignity Inventory (suffering). Interpretation: In this review, we recommended measures with stronger evidence and developed a checklist to guide selection based on domain relevance, disease group, population fit, and psychometrics. Future research should pursue rigorous validation and standardized reporting to strengthen assessment of end-of-life care. Funding: None.
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.