Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 268

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Methodologic issues in effectiveness research on palliative cancer care: a systematic review.

Rinck, G C, van den Bos, G A, Kleijnen, J, de Haes, H J, Schadé, E, Veenhof, C H·1997·Journal of Clinical Oncology

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1200/jco.1997.15.4.1697

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 268

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.