Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 297

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Survival prediction in terminal cancer patients: a systematic review of the medical literature

Viganò, Antonio, Dorgan, Marlene, Buckingham, Jeanette, Bruera, Eduardo, Suarez-Almazor, Maria E·2000·Palliative Medicine

Abstract

The clinical significance of studies on survival predictors in terminal cancer patients is hindered by both methodological limitations and the difficulty of finding common predictors for all final events in cancer related deaths. To evaluate the published medical literature concerned with the survival of patients with terminal cancer and identify potential prognostic factors, major electronic databases including MEDLINE (1966–), CANCERLIT (1983–) and EMBASE (1988–) were searched up to September 1999. Studies were included in our review if published in English, were cohort studies, addressed the identification of clinical prognostic factors for survival and looked at samples with median survival of [.lessequal]3 months. Data extracted from selected papers included: sample size, median survival, type of study, sampling frame, cohort type, type of statistical analysis (univariate or multivariate), choice of models and underlying assumptions, predictors examined and their reported level of statistical significance. A total of 24 studies were found and reviewed. On the basis of these studies, performance status and the presence of cognitive failure, weight loss, dysphagia, anorexia and dyspnoea appear to be independent survival predictors in this population. Clinical estimation of survival by the treating physician appeared independently associated with survival but the magnitude of the association generally appeared small. Clinical predictions should be considered as one of many criteria, rather than as a unique criterion by which to choose therapeutic interventions or health care programmes for terminally ill cancer patients. The use of convenient samples as opposed to more representative inception cohorts, the inclusion of different variables in the statistical analyses and inappropriate statistical methods appear to be major limitations of the reviewed literature. Methodological improvements in the design and conduction of future studies may reduce the prognostic uncertainty in this population.

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 · 10.1191/026921600701536192

Cites

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

Cited by

See all 297

Metadata

Authors
Viganò, A., Dorgan, M., Buckingham, J., Bruera, E., & Suarez-Almazor, M. E.
Venue
Palliative Medicine
Published
2000-07
Volume
14
Issue
5
Pages
363-374
ISSN
  • 0269-2163 (ISSN-L)
  • 1477-030X
OpenAlex
W2059293100
Cited by
297
References
0
FWCI
1.03
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: Survival prediction in terminal cancer patients: a systematic review of the medical literature. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1191/026921600701536192
The paper
Viganò, A., Dorgan, M., Buckingham, J., Bruera, E., & Suarez-Almazor, M. E. (2000). Survival prediction in terminal cancer patients: a systematic review of the medical literature. Palliative Medicine. https://doi.org/10.1191/026921600701536192

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.