| Title |
Palliative sedation in clinical scenarios: results of a modified Delphi study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Supportive Care in Cancer, August 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00520-018-4409-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
M. A. Benítez-Rosario, T. Morita |
| Abstract |
To explore the consistency in international expert opinions about palliative sedation. A modified electronic-Delphi procedure was carried out in two rounds. On hundred nine eligible experts were identified from their publications in MEDLINE related with terminal delirium, dyspnea and palliative sedation in the last 3 years. Delphi study included three vignettes of cancer patients and two non-cancer patients, with an estimated survival of days and severe suffering secondary to refractory complications. Experts were asked about whether they would perform continuous sedation and sedation level (described as Richmond Agitation Sedation Scale or defined as patient/family report of symptom relief). Consensus was considered when 70% or more of the experts agreed on a certain topic. Thirty-four and 27 panellists completed the 2 Delphi rounds, respectively. Participants were from the USA, Canada, Europe, Australia and Asia. One hundred per cent, 97% and 88% of the respondent agreed use of sedatives, continuously or temporary, in cases of refractory delirium, dyspnea secondary to lung cancer and GOLD IV-EPOC. There were discrepancies for cases of dementia and psycho-existential suffering. Expert selection of continuous palliative sedation was 93% for delirium, 41% for cancer dyspnea, 66% for EPOC dyspnea, 22% for agitation/pain in dementia and 19% for existential suffering. Responses about types and levels of sedation did not achieve consensus in any cases. The Delphi study failed to reach consensus in continuous palliative sedation and sedation levels for patients with refractory symptoms described in hypothetical clinical scenarios. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 3 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 72 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 72 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 10 | 14% |
| Other | 5 | 7% |
| Student > Bachelor | 5 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 6% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 4 | 6% |
| Other | 11 | 15% |
| Unknown | 33 | 46% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 18 | 25% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 15 | 21% |
| Neuroscience | 2 | 3% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 3% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 34 | 47% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 12 May 2019.
All research outputs
#17,987,106
of 23,099,576 outputs
Outputs from Supportive Care in Cancer
#3,517
of 4,654 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#238,112
of 331,118 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Supportive Care in Cancer
#85
of 101 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,099,576 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 19th percentile – i.e., 19% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,654 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 331,118 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 101 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.