Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 468

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 12 of the 12 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Effectiveness of Specialized Palliative Care: A Systematic Review

Zimmermann, Camilla, Riechelmann, Rachel, Krzyzanowska, Monika, Rodin, Gary, Tannock, Ian·2008·JAMA

Abstract

CONTEXT: Specialized palliative care teams are increasingly providing care for the terminally ill. However, the impact of such teams on quality of life, satisfaction with care, and economic cost has not been examined systematically using detailed criteria for study quality. OBJECTIVE: To systematically review the evidence for effectiveness of specialized palliative care. DATA SOURCES: We performed a keyword search of the following databases from their inception to January 2008: MEDLINE, Ovid Healthstar, CINAHL, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. STUDY SELECTION: We included all randomized controlled trials in which specialized palliative care was the intervention and for which outcomes included quality of life, satisfaction with care, or economic cost. DATA EXTRACTION: Data on population, intervention, outcome, methods, and methodological quality were extracted by 2 investigators using standardized criteria. RESULTS: Of 396 reports of randomized controlled trials, 22 met our inclusion criteria. There was most consistent evidence for effectiveness of specialized palliative care in improvement of family satisfaction with care (7 of 10 studies favored the intervention). Only 4 of 13 studies assessing quality of life and 1 of 14 assessing symptoms showed a significant benefit of the intervention; however, most studies lacked statistical power to report conclusive results, and quality-of-life measures were not specific for terminally ill patients. There was evidence of significant cost savings of specialized palliative care in only 1 of the 7 studies that assessed this outcome. Methodological limitations were identified in all trials, including contamination of the control group, failure to account for clustering in cluster randomization studies, and substantial problems with recruitment, attrition, and adherence. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence for benefit from specialized palliative care is sparse and limited by methodological shortcomings. Carefully planned trials, using a standardized palliative care intervention and measures constructed specifically for this population, are needed.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jama.299.14.1698

Cites

12 of 12 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 12 references

Cited by

See all 468

Metadata

Authors
Zimmermann, C., Riechelmann, R., Krzyzanowska, M., Rodin, G., & Tannock, I.
Venue
JAMA
Published
2008-04-09
Volume
299
Issue
14
Pages
1698
ISSN
  • 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
  • 0098-7484
OpenAlex
W2038520582
Cited by
468
References
12
FWCI
27.59
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Effectiveness of Specialized Palliative Care: A Systematic Review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/jama.299.14.1698
The paper
Zimmermann, C., Riechelmann, R., Krzyzanowska, M., Rodin, G., & Tannock, I. (2008). Effectiveness of Specialized Palliative Care: A Systematic Review. JAMA. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.299.14.1698

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.