Cited by 120Palliative Care and End-of-Life IssuesPalliative and Oncologic CarePain Management and Opioid Use

Palliative sedation therapy: a systematic literature review and critical appraisal of available guidance on indication and decision making

Schildmann, Eva, Schildmann, Jan·2014·Journal of Palliative Medicine

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Palliative sedation therapy (PST) is increasingly used in end-of-life care. However, consensus about definitions, indications, and treatment decision making is lacking. OBJECTIVE: The objective is to review and critically appraise published guidelines on indication and decision making for PST. METHODS: Data sources are CINAHL, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, PsycINFO, PubMed, and references of included papers through February 2013. Selection criteria were that papers included a PST guideline and were written in English or German. The term "guideline" was defined according to MEDLINE. Two investigators extracted information on the guidelines' recommendations on indication and decision making. RESULTS: The nine eligible guidelines differ in their definitions of PST. In addition key terms such as "refractory symptom" or "intolerable suffering" are used differently. These criteria are also weighed differently in their relevance for indication and decision making. PST for psychological distress is regarded as exceptional by eight guidelines, but only two guidelines provide reasons for this exceptionalism in comparison with PST for somatic suffering. In the majority of guidelines the role of different stakeholders involved in decision making is not specified. With regards to the limitation of life-sustaining measures, e.g., intravenous hydration, in the context of PST the analyzed guidelines differ in their recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: PST guidelines differ considerably on aspects of indication and decision making about PST which are relevant from a clinical as well as ethical perspective. The comparison and critical appraisal can serve as a starting point for the improvement of future PST policies.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1089/jpm.2013.0511

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 27 · Cited by 120

Authors
Schildmann, E., & Schildmann, J.
Affiliations
  • München Klinik (DE)
  • Ruhr University Bochum (DE)
Corresponding author
Schildmann, Jan
Venue
Journal of Palliative Medicine
Published
2014-05-01
Volume
17
Issue
5
Pages
601-611
ISSN
  • 1096-6218 (ISSN-L)
  • 1557-7740
OpenAlex
W1554605861
Cited by
120
References
27
Citations by year
2025: 6 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 15 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 4
FWCI
1.84
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Palliative Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • OPUS (Augsburg University) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Palliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Palliative and Oncologic Care
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine › Pain Management and Opioid Use
Keywords
end-of-life care, treatment decision-making, psychological distress, intravenous hydration, stakeholder engagement
MeSH terms
Decision Making, Humans, Hypnotics and Sedatives, Intractable Pain, Palliative Care, Stress, Psychological, Terminal Care, Procedural Sedation, Practice Guidelines as Topic

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