This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Keeley, P. W. Articles by Noble, S. I.R. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Keeley, P. W. Articles by Noble, S. I.R. Social Bookmarking                   What's this?

The evidence base of palliative medicine: is inpatient palliative medicine evidence-based?

Glasgow Royal Infirmary, Glasgow, paul.keeley{at}northglasgow.scot.nhs.uk

Esther T. Waterhouse

LOROS Hospice, Groby Road, Leicester

Simon I.R. Noble

Department of Palliative Medicine, Royal Gwent Hospital, Cardiff Road, Newport, Gwent

Background: In 2001, Good and Stafford published a study attempting to show that inpatient palliative medicine is evidence-based. Aim: To critically examine the papers cited in support of the claim that palliative medicine is evidence-based. Method: All the papers cited were re-examined by at least two reviewers. The papers were graded using a tool used in the production of 22 evidence-based national clinical guidelines over the past three years. Differences of opinion about quality were resolved by discussion or independent arbitration. Results: The 41 papers cited by Good and Stafford included 25 randomized controlled trials (RCT), six other controlled studies and 10 uncontrolled studies. Sample size. Mean sample size was 160 (range 9—1404). The median sample size was 56; 19/41(46%) had <50 subjects; 30/41 (73%) had <100. Power calculations. 16/25 (64%) of RCTs, had no power calculations, making it difficult to draw conclusions about true differences between groups. Quality rating and grade of evidence: Of the RCTs 15/25 (60%) had a high risk of bias; of the other controlled studies 5/6 (83%) had a high risk of bias. Applicability. The studies were generally applicable to a population with advanced disease: 30/41 (73%) related with populations with advanced disease. Conclusions: This study demonstrates that studies cited in support of palliative medicine as an evidence-based specialty are of variable, and at times poor quality. This study seems to show that the claim that inpatient palliative medicine is evidence-based is at best tenuous and at worst misleading. Palliative Medicine 2007; 21 : 623—627

Key Words: clinical trials • critical appraisal • evidence-based medicine • palliative care • randomized controlled trials

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				P. Good and B. Stafford Letter to the editor Palliative Medicine, October 1, 2007; 21(7): 629 - 630. [PDF]