Observational studyBMC palliative care2026
Monitoring patients' symptom improvement in palliative care units using patient-reported outcomes: a multicenter prospective observational study.
Observational study in BMC palliative care, 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
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe use of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) can facilitate the reduction of the severity of patient symptoms. Several countries have implemented projects that routinely use PROs in palliative care settings, resulting in increased patient symptom improvement rates. In Japan, a pilot study of hospital-based palliative care teams was conducted in 2021; however, no study has been conducted in palliative care units (PCUs). This study assessed patient symptom improvement rates using PROs and evaluated the feasibility of routine PRO assessment and data collection in PCUs in Japan.
methodsWe conducted a multicenter, prospective, observational study in eight PCUs. Patients newly admitted to PCUs between June and September 2024 were included in this study. Based on the analysis requirement of 369 PRO responders and an assumed 60% response rate, 615 participants were targeted for enrollment (369/0.60). Data on four symptoms (pain, shortness of breath, nausea, and worries or concerns) were collected weekly using the Integrated Palliative Outcome Scale (IPOS) from admission to week 4.
resultsA total of 550 patients were admitted to the PCUs; 388 self-reported patients were included in the analysis. The PRO response rate was > 70% at all timepoints. The IPOS score decreased statistically only between admission and week 1 (pain, p < 0.001; shortness of breath, p < 0.001; nausea, p = 0.001; worries or concerns, p < 0.001). A 1-point decrease in IPOS scores was observed for pain (from 2 to 1), shortness of breath (from 2 to 1), worries or concerns (from 2 to 1) from admission to week 1, and shortness of breath from week 3 to week 4 (from 1 to 0). In the “severe/moderate to absent/mild” and “keep absent/mild” categories, benchmark improvement rates were achieved only for nausea (70.7%; 90.0%).
conclusionsA 1-week regular evaluation using PROs may be feasible in PCUs in Japan. The greatest improvement in symptom scores occurred within the first week following PCU admission, with an observed plateau in subsequent weeks, suggesting that the first week may be important for assessing the quality of care in PCUs.
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.