ArticlePalliative medicine2026
Article in Palliative medicine, 2026. 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.
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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe Analgesia Nociception Index device may serve as a guide to a person's parasympathetic activity via the heart rate variability. It is used to assess the level of discomfort of non-communicative patients at the end of life. Although the index's acceptability in palliative care have been demonstrated, the healthcare professionals and the patient's relatives did not have direct, continuous access to the monitor screen.
aimTo evaluate how healthcare professionals and patients' relatives in a palliative care unit perceived the use of the Analgesia Nociception Index.
designA qualitative, comprehensive, two-centre study was based on individual, semidirective interviews. The interview data were evaluated in a reflexive, thematic analysis. SETTING/
participantsWe interviewed (i) healthcare professionals who used the Analgesia Nociception Index in their routine practice and (ii) the relatives of patients who had been monitored with the tool during their stay in the unit.
resultsA total of 28 interviews were conducted. The device was perceived mainly to be an additional medical technique for increasing a person's level of comfort. Some professionals highlighted a risk of re-medicalizing the end of life, with a display screen that distracted attention from the person. A few relatives stated that the changes on the screen were a way of staying in touch with their loved one's perception. The tool helped to increase the value of the relatives' support.
conclusionThe present results might help clinicians to tailor the monitoring to each patient's situation and to communicate more effectively with both care teams and relatives.
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.