↓ Skip to main content

Michigan Publishing

Article Metrics

Interventions to reduce aggressive care at end of life among patients with cancer: a systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in Lancet Oncology, November 2019
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (88th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (56th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
29 tweeters
Title
Interventions to reduce aggressive care at end of life among patients with cancer: a systematic review
Published in
Lancet Oncology, November 2019
DOI 10.1016/s1470-2045(19)30496-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Nauzley C Abedini, Rachel K Hechtman, Achintya D Singh, Rafina Khateeb, Jason Mann, Whitney Townsend, Vineet Chopra

Abstract

Little is known about effective interventions to reduce aggressive end-of-life care in patients with cancer. We did a systematic review to assess what interventions are associated with reductions in aggressive end-of-life cancer care. We searched MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, Scopus, and PsychINFO for randomised control trials (RCTs), quasi-experimental, and observational studies published before Jan 19, 2018, which aimed to improve measures of aggressive end-of-life care for patients with cancer. We developed a taxonomy of interventions using the Systems Engineering Initiative for Patient Safety (SEIPS) model to summarise existing interventions that addressed aggressive care for patients with cancer. Of the 6451 studies identified by our search, five RCTs and 31 observational studies met the final inclusion criteria. Using the SEIPS framework, 16 subcategories of interventions were identified. With the exception of documentation of end-of-life discussions in the electronic medical record, no single intervention type or SEIPS domain led to consistent improvements in aggressive end-of-life care measures. The ability to discern the interventions' effectiveness was limited by inconsistent use of validated measures of aggressive care. Seven (23%) of 31 observational studies and no RCTs were at low risk of bias according to Cochrane's Risk of Bias tool. Evidence for improving aggressive end-of-life cancer care is limited by the absence of standardised measurements and poor study design. Policies and studies to address the gaps present in end-of-life care for cancer are necessary.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 29 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 17. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 07 November 2019.
All research outputs
#956,766
of 13,777,603 outputs
Outputs from Lancet Oncology
#1,177
of 4,936 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#25,309
of 213,712 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Lancet Oncology
#46
of 105 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,777,603 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,936 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 24.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 213,712 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 105 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% of its contemporaries.