ArticlePalliative care and social practice2026
Performance of clinical judgment and prognostic scales for survival prediction in palliative care: A prospective cohort study.
Article in Palliative care and social practice, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Accurate survival estimation is essential for decision-making in advanced cancer care. However, clinical judgment alone often tends to overestimate survival. The performance of prognostic tools has scarcely been explored in Latin American populations. Objectives: To prospectively evaluate and compare the predictive performance of four prognostic scales: the Palliative Prognostic Index, the Performance Status-Palliative Prognostic Index, the Palliative Prognostic Score, and the Delirium-Palliative Prognostic Score, against the clinical judgment of specialists in a Colombian cohort. Design: An observational, analytical, prospective cohort study was conducted. Methods: The study included 166 patients with advanced cancer admitted to a specialized Palliative Care Unit in Colombia. Participants were followed for up to 90 days or until death. We compared the discrimination of the scales using Harrell's Concordance Index (C-index) and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve at 7, 30, and 90 days. Calibration was assessed using calibration plots. Results: Specialist clinical judgment, the Palliative Prognostic Score, and the Delirium-Palliative Prognostic Score demonstrated excellent discriminatory capacity for short-term survival prediction, with a concordance index greater than 0.8. Clinical judgment tended to underestimate 7-day survival, while all tools showed a tendency to overestimate 90-day survival. A high short-term mortality rate was observed, with nearly 50% of patients dying within 30 days of admission. Conclusion: In specialized palliative care settings in Latin America, combining expert clinical judgment with the Palliative Prognostic Score or its delirium variant is recommended for prognostication. The Palliative Prognostic Index and its performance status-based variant are useful alternatives in nonspecialized settings. The high short-term mortality observed highlights a systemic issue of late referral to palliative care services in the region.
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.