Get help now — free helplines

You can call any of these for free. You do not need a diagnosis, an appointment, or a crisis to call — questions and plain exhaustion are reasons enough.

  • Alzheimer's Association 24/7 Helpline 800-272-3900 24 hours a day, 365 days a year Free, confidential support and information for people with dementia, caregivers, families and the public. Master's-level clinicians. Also Spanish.
  • 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline 988 24/7 Call or text 988, or chat at 988lifeline.org. For anyone in emotional distress or a mental-health crisis, including caregivers.
  • Alzheimer's Foundation of America (AFA) Helpline 866-232-8484 9:00 am - 9:00 pm ET, seven days a week Licensed social workers providing support, info and referrals. Also text message and web chat. Text: 646-586-5283

In a medical emergency, call 911. More numbers, and what each line does, on the help page.

This page is alzhub.org's plain-English summary of a published study, not the paper itself. It is generated from the record we hold for this study, sourced and linked below — check the original for the full text and methods.

✓ Peer-reviewed alzhub usefulness score 79 out of 100. End-of-life care

Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies

Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently assessed for inclusion all the potential studies we identified as a result of the search strategy. Main results We identified two studies of palliative care interventions for people with advanced dementia. This and small sample sizes meant that the overall certainty of all the evidence was very low.One individually randomised RCT (99 participants) evaluated the effect of a palliative care team for people with advanced dementia hospitalised for an acute illness. We found no evidence that the intervention affected mortality in hospital (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.53 to 2.13), decisions to forgo cardiopulmonary resuscitation in hospital or the clinical care provided during hospital admission, but for the latter, event rates were low and the results were associated with a lot of uncertainty.One cluster RCT (256 participants, each enrolled with a family carer) evaluated the effect of a decision aid on end-of-life feeding options on surrogate decision-makers of nursing home residents with advanced dementia. In this subset, intervention surrogates had lower scores for decisional conflict measured on the Decisional Conflict Scale (mean difference -0.30, 95% CI -0.61 to 0.01, reduction of 0.3 to 0.4 units considered meaningful) and were more likely than participants in the control group to discuss feeding options with a clinician (RR 1.57, 95% CI 0.93 to 2.64), but imprecision meant that there was significant uncertainty about both results. Thus, we conclude that there is insufficient evidence to assess the effect of palliative care interventions in advanced dementia.

Key findings

Study details

How this study scored 79/100
How this study's score is builtJournal tier 9 of 10; Journal's citation record left out, no data; Study design 12 of 12; Strength of evidence 5 of 5; Peer-review validation 10 of 10; How recent 1 of 5; Sample size 1 of 4; Effect reported 3 of 3; Studied in people 3 of 3; Randomised / blinded 0 of 2; Times cited left out, no data; Citations per year left out, no data; Impact for its field and year left out, no data; Cited by studies here left out, no data; Still being cited left out, no data; Senior author's track record left out, no data; Institution's track record left out, no data; Multi-centre collaboration left out, no data; Indexed in PubMed 2 of 2; Free to read 0 of 2. 46 of the 58 points it could be judged on, which is 79 of 100. Total 79 of 100.46 of the 58 points we could judge = 79 of 100

Published in a leading specialty journal, and it is a meta-analysis pooling many studies. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multi-centre collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 46 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 79 out of 100.

ComponentPointsWhy
Journal tier 9 / 10 Tier 2 — leading specialty journal (The Cochrane database of systematic reviews)
Journal's citation record — / 4 No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score
Study design 12 / 12 A meta-analysis pooling many studies
Strength of evidence 5 / 5 Rated “high” in our summary
Peer-review validation 10 / 10 Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal.
How recent 1 / 5 2016 — within 20 year(s) of the newest study here
Sample size 1 / 4 99 participants
Effect reported 3 / 3 Effect reported with a statistic (interval, p-value, ratio or similar)
Studied in people 3 / 3 Studied in people (participant count stated)
Randomised / blinded 0 / 2 A review of other studies — randomisation is not credited here
Times cited — / 7 No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score
Citations per year — / 5 No citation count or no year — left out of this score
Impact for its field and year — / 6 No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score
Cited by studies here — / 6 Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score
Still being cited — / 4 No yearly citation counts — left out of this score
Senior author's track record — / 4 Senior author's record not available — left out of this score
Institution's track record — / 3 No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score
Multi-centre collaboration — / 3 Institutions not listed — left out of this score
Indexed in PubMed 2 / 2 Indexed in PubMed (PMID 27911489)
Free to read 0 / 2 Behind a paywall — scores zero
Points 46 / 58 Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 46 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 79 out of 100.
Total 79 / 100 —

What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →

Read the original

Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.

Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris

Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. The record names 7 authors; APA and Vancouver show the first six, BibTeX and the downloads carry all of them. Check the citation against the original before you use it.

APA 7th

Murphy, E., Froggatt, K., Connolly, S., O'Shea, E., Sampson, E. L., Casey, D., et al. (2016). Palliative care interventions in advanced dementia. The Cochrane database of systematic reviews. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.cd011513.pub2

Vancouver

Murphy E, Froggatt K, Connolly S, O'Shea E, Sampson EL, Casey D, et al. Palliative care interventions in advanced dementia. The Cochrane database of systematic reviews. 2016. doi:10.1002/14651858.cd011513.pub2. PMID: 27911489.

BibTeX

@article{murphy2016-27911489,
  author  = {Murphy, E. and Froggatt, K. and Connolly, S. and O'Shea, E. and Sampson, E. L. and Casey, D. and Devane, D.},
  title   = {{Palliative care interventions in advanced dementia}},
  journal = {The Cochrane database of systematic reviews},
  year    = {2016},
  doi     = {10.1002/14651858.cd011513.pub2},
  pmid    = {27911489},
  url     = {https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.cd011513.pub2}
}

Related studies in End-of-life care

Similar studies

More on End-of-life care

See all studies in End-of-life care →