Ambulatory palliative care and cancer symptom control: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Ambulatory palliative care clinics are associated with improved outcomes in cancer patients, including short-term quality of life. However, their impact on individual patient-reported symptoms is not well understood. AIM: We evaluated the impact of ambulatory palliative care on individual symptoms in adult cancer patients. DESIGN: Following a standard protocol (PROSPERO: CRD42022321909), investigators independently identified randomised and non-randomised intervention studies that assessed patient-reported symptom scores using validated symptom assessment scales longitudinally. Data were synthesised using random-effects meta-analyses. DATA SOURCES: Database of PubMed, CINAHL, EMBASE, PsycINFO and Cochrane Central was searched from inception to September 2023 for eligible studies. RESULTS: 20 studies encompassing 4 prospective cohort studies, 1 randomised control trial and 15 retrospective studies were included. Most studies focused on cohorts with advanced cancers of mixed primary tumour type, were colocated within or linked to a tertiary cancer centre and assessed symptoms using the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS). The meta-analyses confirmed evidence for improvement in pain (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.31, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.44), anxiety (SMD 0.31, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.49), fatigue (SMD 0.31, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.51), insomnia (SMD 0.29, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.42), depression (SMD 0.25, 95% CI 0.09 to 0.40), drowsiness (SMD 0.23, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.34), well-being (SMD 0.28, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.45) and overall symptom burden (SMD 0.29, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.36). There was no evidence for improvement in nausea (SMD 0.19, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.40), dyspnoea (SMD 0.16, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.29) and appetite scores (SMD 0.14, 95% CI -0.00 to 0.29). CONCLUSIONS: Ambulatory palliative care had positive effects on multiple common symptoms. The strength of this evidence however is low, largely due to the considerable heterogeneity among included studies. Further research could determine thresholds on symptom assessment scales to guide urgency of referral, timing of follow-up and optimal multidisciplinary staff involvement.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.036 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".