ArticleBMC palliative care2026
A scoping review of palliative care assessment tools.
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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPalliative care requires timely and accurate assessment to support patient-centred outcomes. However, existing tools vary widely in purpose, design, and implementation. Understanding the current landscape of available tools is essential to guide future innovation. This review aimed to systematically identify and map published literature on palliative care assessment tools, focusing on their purpose and domains assessed, with consideration of reported validation, usability, and implementation characteristics.
methodsScoping review conducted using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology and reported according to the PRISMA-ScR checklist. Ovid MEDLINE, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Library were searched for peer-reviewed studies published in English from 2005 to 2024. Studies were included if they assessed tools used in palliative care populations for symptom assessment, quality of life, early identification, psychosocial evaluation, or caregiver support. Study screening, data extraction, and synthesis were completed in Covidence.
resultsA total of 299 studies from over 40 countries were included, representing 813,819 participants. The Edmonton Symptom Assessment System (52.1%) was the most frequently used tool. Most tools focused on symptom assessment (27%) and quality of life (22%), with limited attention to caregiver burden (4%), spiritual wellbeing (4%), or social support (4%). Ninety-four studies (31%) reported positive perceptions of tool utility, and one reported a negative outcome. Key gaps included cultural adaptation, digital integration, multi-user access, and holistic scope.
conclusionsAlthough many tools support clinical assessment, few address the complexity of holistic, person-centred care. There is an urgent need for co-designed, culturally sensitive, and digitally enabled tools to support equitable palliative care delivery.
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.