ArticleBMC palliative care2026
SPICT as a predictive tool for outcomes of 1-year in patients with neurological disorders: a cohort study.
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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe Supportive and Palliative Care Indicators Tool (SPICT) is designed to identify patients with deteriorating health and palliative care needs. Its predictive validity in a dedicated neurological inpatient population, particularly for a comprehensive set of clinical and functional outcomes, remains underexplored.
methodsIn this prospective cohort study, we enrolled 337 patients with neurological disorders during hospitalization. Baseline assessments included a demographic characteristics questionnaire, disease-specific scales, and the SPICT. Physicians also subjectively assessed each patient’s palliative care needs. All patients completed one-year follow-up assessments after discharge, including length of hospital stay, number of unplanned hospitalizations, complications, Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS), Barthel Index (BI), frailty status, vital status, palliative care referral willingness, and palliative care referral.
resultsAt baseline, 152 patients (45.1%) were SPICT-positive, whereas physicians identified only one patient (0.3%) as having palliative care needs, indicating poor agreement (κ = 0.007, p = 0.451). At one-year follow-up, 301 patients were included in this study, and SPICT-positive patients demonstrated significantly worse outcomes compared to the SPICT-negative group: longer hospital stay, greater complications and mortality, increased frailty severity, and significantly lower KPS and BI scores (all p < 0.001). No significant difference was found in number of unplanned hospitalizations, palliative care referral preference, and palliative care referral (p > 0.05).
conclusionThese findings support the use of SPICT as a systematic, evidence-based tool for early identification of neurological disorders patients at higher risk for poor one-year outcomes. SPICT is not intended as a referral engine but rather as an upstream screening tool to facilitate goal of care discussions, advance care planning, and longitudinal monitoring for neurology patients.
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.