ArticleBMC palliative care2026
Comparison of different proxy approaches to determine the need for specialized palliative care in patients with incurable cancer.
Article 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPatients suffering from cancer can benefit from a timely integration of palliative and end-of-life care. In the literature different approaches are discussed that can be used by health care professionals (as proxies) to determine cancer patients in need for specialist palliative care. Until now data on comparing different tools is scarce. This study compared published methods for detecting patients with advanced and incurable cancer in need for specialist palliative care.
methodsData of three hundred and sixteen patients with incurable cancer-collected during a study validating the German version of a screening tool based on NCCN guidelines (Glare) - were used for secondary analysis. The data were used to test the performance of different tools in detecting patients with palliative care needs: two disease-specific classifications (Gaertner, Benthien), the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status (ECOG), the Surprise Question, as well as a combination of the Surprise Question and the German NCCN tool and the Surprise Question and the ECOG score. To quantify which tool performed best, survival, Integrated Palliative Outcome Scale (IPOS - staff version) (one or more items ≥ 3), and the information of a preexistent contact to palliative care served as indicators of real SPC needs in this patient group.
resultsThe combination of Surprise Question and the German NCCN Screening tool showed a sensitivity between 71.5%-94.3% and specificity between 56.0%-91.3%, while the combination of Surprise Question and ECOG score had a sensitivity between 37.4%-75.7% and specificity between 86.2%-100%. Benthien's classification performed a fair sensitivity (74.8%-91.5%) and a weak specificity (27.3%-39.4%), whereas the guidelines by Gaertner showed high sensitivity (92.2%-100%), but very low specificity in all standards (0.0%-9.9%).
conclusionWhile the combination of the Surprise Question and the German NCCN screening tool showed the best results in terms of sensitivity and specificity overall, a combination of the Surprise Question and ECOG score proved to be highly specific and as time-efficient in identifying patients in need of SPC, which may be beneficial.
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.