The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Methodologic issues in effectiveness research on palliative cancer care: a systematic review.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The objective of this report is to explore methodologic issues on the basis of a systematic review of the literature of effectiveness research on palliative cancer care with regard to selection and characteristics of a study population, interventions, and outcome assessment. METHODS: A systematic review was performed of randomized clinical trials on comprehensive palliative care with quality assessment of the studies by three independent observers, using predefined quality criteria. RESULTS: In the literature search, 11 relevant studies were identified. Without exception, methodologic problems were experienced. In two studies, the problems were so severe that no results were reported. Problems were associated with the recruitment of a study population in 10 studies, its homogeneity in six, patient attrition in four, defining and maintaining the contrast between the strategies in six, and selection of the outcome variables in four. CONCLUSION: Effectiveness research in palliative care is complex and has many pitfalls. To enhance the quality of future palliative care trials and the validity of their results, we particularly stress the importance of careful case finding, strict eligibility criteria, precise documentation of the process of care, and comprehensive outcome measurement. The relation of structure, process, and outcome variables in comprehensive palliative care should be further explored. It is a challenge for future research to link patient outcomes to the quality of care, independent from the autonomous course of the disease and from personal characteristics.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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
Early palliative care for patients with advanced cancer: a cluster-randomised controlled trial
Zimmermann, C., Swami, N., Krzyzanowska, M., Hannon, B., Leighl, N., Oza, A., Moore, M., Rydall, A., Rodin, G., Tannock, I., et al. (2014) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(13)62416-2 · Cited by 1,781
Scales to Assess the Quality of Randomized Controlled Trials: A Systematic Review
Olivo, S. A., Macedo, L. G., Gadotti, I. C., Fuentes, J., Stanton, T., & Magee, D. J. (2008) · Physical Therapy · doi:10.2522/ptj.20070147 · Cited by 829
Impact of an Inpatient Palliative Care Team: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Gade, G., Venohr, I., Conner, D., McGrady, K., Beane, J., Richardson, R. H., Williams, M. P., Liberson, M., Blum, M., & Penna, R. D. (2008) · Journal of Palliative Medicine · doi:10.1089/jpm.2007.0055 · Cited by 564
Do Hospital-Based Palliative Teams Improve Care for Patients or Families at the End of Life?
Higginson, I. J., Finlay, I., Goodwin, D. M., Cook, A. M., Hood, K., Edwards, A. G. K., Douglas, H.-R., & Norman, C. E. (2002) · Journal of Pain and Symptom Management · doi:10.1016/s0885-3924(01)00406-7 · Cited by 344
Symptoms in Adults with Lung Cancer
Cooley, M. E. (2000) · Journal of Pain and Symptom Management · doi:10.1016/s0885-3924(99)00150-5 · Cited by 288
Metadata
- Authors
- Rinck, G. C., van den Bos, G. A., Kleijnen, J., de Haes, H. J., Schadé, E., & Veenhof, C. H.
- Venue
- Journal of Clinical Oncology
- Published
- 1997-04
- Volume
- 15
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 1697-1707
- ISSN
- 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
- 1527-7755
- OpenAlex
- W2097713807
- Cited by
- 268
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 12.29
- 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: Methodologic issues in effectiveness research on palliative cancer care: a systematic review. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1200/jco.1997.15.4.1697
- The paper
- Rinck, G. C., van den Bos, G. A., Kleijnen, J., de Haes, H. J., Schadé, E., & Veenhof, C. H. (1997). Methodologic issues in effectiveness research on palliative cancer care: a systematic review. Journal of Clinical Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.1997.15.4.1697
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.