ReviewPalliative medicine2025
A pragmatic approach to selecting a grading system for clinical practice recommendations in palliative care.
Review in Palliative medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Research integrity in practice: Qualitative analysis of team members' reflection reports highlights the importance of ongoing collaborative learning.Open research Europe · 2026Article
- Methodological reflections to support good practice in using nominal group techniques: Insights from applications in palliative care studies.Palliative medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe limited palliative care evidence base is poorly amenable to existing grading schemes utilized in guidelines. Many recommendations are based on expert consensus or clinical practice standards, which are often considered 'low-quality' evidence. Reinforcing provider hesitancy in translating recommendations to practice has implications for patient care.
aimTo rationalize the selection of an appropriate grading system for rating evidence to support recommendations made in palliative care clinical practice guidelines.
designReview of the methodology sections of international palliative care guidelines published in English identified five grading systems comparison: Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE); the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN); Infectious Diseases Society of America-European Society for Medical Oncology (IDSA-ESMO); Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research (CERQual) and the National Service Framework for Long Term Conditions (NSF-LTC).
resultsThere is heterogeneity among grading systems used in published palliative care or terminal symptom management guidelines. GRADE has been increasingly adopted for its methodological rigour and inter-guideline consistency with other medical associations. CERQual has the potential to support recommendations informed by qualitative evidence, but its role in clinical guidelines is less defined. The IDSA-ESMO system has an intuitive typology with the ability to categorize tiers of lower-quality evidence.
conclusionsIt is challenging to apply commonly used grading systems to the palliative care evidence base, which often lacks robust randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Adoption of IDSA-ESMO offers a feasible and practical alternative for lower-resourced guideline developers and palliative clinicians without a prerequisite for methodological expertise.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.