4.7 Article

Quantity, Design, and Scope of the Palliative Oncology Literature

期刊

ONCOLOGIST
卷 16, 期 5, 页码 694-703

出版社

ALPHAMED PRESS
DOI: 10.1634/theoncologist.2010-0397

关键词

Literature; Neoplasms; Palliative care; Research design

类别

资金

  1. National Institutes of Health [RO1NR010162-01A1, RO1CA122292-01, RO1CA124481-01]
  2. NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE [R01CA122292, R01CA124481] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  3. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF NURSING RESEARCH [R01NR010162] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The current state of the palliative oncology literature is unclear. We examined and compared the quantity, research design, and research topics of palliative oncology publications in the first 6 months of 2004 with the first 6 months of 2009. We systematically searched MEDLINE, PsychInfo, EMBASE, ISI Web of Science, and CINAHL for original studies, review articles, and systematic reviews related to palliative care and cancer during the first 6 months of 2004 and 2009. Two physicians reviewed the literature independently and coded the study characteristics with high inter-rater reliability. We found a consistent decrease in the proportion of oncology studies related to palliative care between 2004 and 2009, despite an absolute increase in the total number of palliative oncology studies. Combining the two time periods, the most common original study designs were case report/series, cross-sectional studies, and qualitative studies. Randomized controlled trials comprised 6% of all original studies. The most common topics were physical symptoms, health services research, and psychosocial issues. Communication, decision making, spirituality, education, and research methodologies all represented < 5% of the literature. Comparing 2004 with 2009, we found an increase in the proportion of original studies among all palliative oncology publications but no significant difference in study design or research topic. We identified significant deficiencies in the quantity, design, and scope of the palliative oncology literature. Further effort and resources are necessary to improve the evidence base for this important field. The Oncologist 2011;16:694-703

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据