ArticleBMJ open2025
Palliative care consultation for end-of-life decision-making in hospitalised patients: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in BMJ open, 2025. 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionHospitalised patients nearing the end of life (EOL) often face complex treatment decisions, leading to potential conflicts among care teams, patients and families. Palliative care consultations may enhance decision-making processes, improve satisfaction and reduce unnecessary interventions. This systematic review will assess the impact of palliative care consultations on treatment decisions, family and patient satisfaction, and psychological outcomes in hospitalised adults. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will include randomised controlled trials comparing palliative care consultations to standard care in hospitalised adults. The primary outcomes will include decisions to withhold or withdraw treatments, patient and family satisfaction with EOL decision-making, and psychological outcomes such as anxiety, depression and post-traumatic stress disorder. Secondary outcomes will include intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital length of stay, utilisation of potentially non-beneficial treatments, and the use of institutional policies or legal actions. Databases including MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane CENTRAL and PsycINFO will be systematically searched from inception to September 2025. Two independent reviewers will screen studies and extract data using Covidence. Meta-analyses will use random-effects models to generate pooled estimates for primary and secondary outcomes. Risk of bias will be assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool, and evidence certainty will be evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. Subgroup analyses will explore variations by ICU versus non-ICU settings, cancer versus non-cancer diagnoses and default versus clinician-initiated consultations. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not required for this review. Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD420250624190.
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.