Home › Research › End-of-life care
Palliative care interventions in advanced dementia
Walsh SC, Murphy E, Devane D, Sampson EL, Connolly S, Carney P, O'Shea E.. The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2021-09-28
Topic: Risk, prevention and care in population studies
We assessed the risk of bias of included studies using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and the overall certainty of the evidence for each outcome using GRADE. Main results Nine studies (2122 participants) met the review inclusion criteria. We conducted two separate comparisons: organisation and delivery of care interventions versus usual care (six studies, 1162 participants) and advance care planning interventions versus usual care (three studies, 960 participants). For both comparisons, we found the included studies to be sufficiently similar to conduct meta-analyses. However, the evidence is very uncertain and unlikely to be clinically significant. When compared to usual care, changes to the organisation and delivery of care for people with advanced dementia may lead to improvements in comfort in dying, but the evidence for this was of very low certainty. Advance care planning interventions, compared to usual care, probably increase the documentation of advance directives and the occurrence of discussions about goals of care, and may also increase concordance with goals of care.
Key findings
- We assessed the risk of bias of included studies using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and the overall certainty of the evidence for each outcome using GRADE.
- Main results Nine studies (2122 participants) met the review inclusion criteria.
- We conducted two separate comparisons: organisation and delivery of care interventions versus usual care (six studies, 1162 participants) and advance care planning interventions versus usual care (three studies, 960 participants).
- For both comparisons, we found the included studies to be sufficiently similar to conduct meta-analyses.
- However, the evidence is very uncertain and unlikely to be clinically significant.
Study details
- Study designmeta-analysis
- Participants2,122
- Effect sizeRR 5.84; RR 1.11; RR 1.46
- Evidence strengthHigh
How this study scored 86/100
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 50 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 86 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| 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 | 3 / 5 | 2021 — within 6 year(s) of the newest study here |
| Sample size | 3 / 4 | 2,122 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 34582034) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 50 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 50 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 86 out of 100. |
| Total | 86 / 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
Walsh, S. C., Murphy, E., Devane, D., Sampson, E. L., Connolly, S., Carney, P., et al. (2021). Palliative care interventions in advanced dementia. The Cochrane database of systematic reviews. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.cd011513.pub3
Vancouver
Walsh SC, Murphy E, Devane D, Sampson EL, Connolly S, Carney P, et al. Palliative care interventions in advanced dementia. The Cochrane database of systematic reviews. 2021. doi:10.1002/14651858.cd011513.pub3. PMID: 34582034.
BibTeX
@article{walsh2021-34582034,
author = {Walsh, S. C. and Murphy, E. and Devane, D. and Sampson, E. L. and Connolly, S. and Carney, P. and O'Shea, E.},
title = {{Palliative care interventions in advanced dementia}},
journal = {The Cochrane database of systematic reviews},
year = {2021},
doi = {10.1002/14651858.cd011513.pub3},
pmid = {34582034},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.cd011513.pub3}
}