Evidence-based practice is foundational to high-quality palliative care delivery. However, the clinical trials that compose the evidence base are often methodologically imperfect. Applying their conclusions without critical application to the clinical practice context can harm patients. The tips provided can help clinicians infer judiciously from clinical trial results and avoid credulously accepting findings without critique. We suggest that statistical and mathematical expertise is unnecessary, but rather a keen curiosity about investigators’ rationale for certain design choices and how these choices can affect results is key. For a more comprehensive understanding of clinical trials, this article can be used with the authors’ corresponding ten tips article that focuses on designing a clinical trial.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Bouca-MachadoR, RosarioM, AlarcaoJ, et al.Clinical trials in palliative care: A systematic review of their methodological characteristics and of the quality of their reporting. BMC Palliat Care, 2017; 16(1):10.
2.
BackAL, RotellaJD, DashtiA, et al.Top ten tips palliative care clinicians should know about designing a clinical trial in palliative care (In Press). Journal of Palliative Medicine, 2024.
3.
StanleyT, DoucouliagosH, IoannidisJ. Finding the power to reduce publication bias. Stat Med, 2017; 36(10):1580–1598.
4.
MotulskyH. Intuitive biostatistics: A nonmathematical guide to statistical thinking. Completely rev. 2nd ed: Oxford University Press. New York; 2010.
5.
ButtonK, IoannidisJ, MokryszC, et al.Power failure: Why small sample size undermines the reliability of neuroscience. Nat Rev Neurosci, 2013; 14(5):365–376.
6.
IoannidisJ. Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Med, 2005; 2(8):e124.
7.
SesslerCN, GosnellMS, GrapMJ, et al.The Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale: Validity and reliability in adult intensive care unit patients. Am J Respir Crit Care Med, 2002; 166(10):1338–1344.
8.
LiY, HungV, HoK, et al.The validity of patient-reported outcome measures of quality of life in palliative care: A systematic review. J Palliat Med, 2023; 27(4):545–562.
9.
RamerS, SchererJ. Moving the science of patient-reported outcome measures forward: Measuring fatigue in hemodialysis patients. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol, 2020; 15(11):1546–1548.
10.
MichelsC, BoultonM, AdamsA, et al.Psychometric properties of carer-reported outcome measures in palliative care: A systematic review. Palliat Med, 2016; 30(1):23–44.
11.
SteinhauserKE, VoilsCI, ClippEC, et al.“Are you at peace?”: one item to probe spiritual concerns at the end of life. Arch Intern Med, 2006; 166(1):101–105.
12.
HuiD, Frisbee-HumeS, WilsonA, et al.Effect of lorazepam with haloperidol vs haloperidol alone on agitated delirium in patients with advanced cancer receiving palliative care: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA, 2017; 318(11):1047–1056.
13.
HuiD, De La RosaA, WilsonA, et al.Neuroleptic strategies for terminal agitation in patients with cancer and delirium at an acute palliative care unit: A single-centre, double-blind, parallel-group, randomised trial. Lancet Oncol, 2020; 21(7):989–998.
14.
AverittA, WengC, RyanP, PerotteA. Translating evidence into practice: Eligibility criteria fail to eliminate clinically significant differences between real-world and study populations. NPJ Digit Med, 2020; 3:67.
15.
TanY, PapezV, ChangW, et al.Comparing clinical trial population representativeness to real-world populations: An external validity analysis encompassing 43 895 trials and 5 685 738 individuals across 989 unique drugs and 286 conditions in England. Lancet Healthy Longev, 2022; 3(10).
16.
TanYY, PapezV, ChangWH, et al.Comparing clinical trial population representativeness to real-world populations: An external validity analysis encompassing 43 895 trials and 5 685 738 individuals across 989 unique drugs and 286 conditions in England. Lancet Healthy Longev, 2022; 3(10):e674–e89.
17.
DekkersOM, von ElmE, AlgraA, et al.How to assess the external validity of therapeutic trials: A conceptual approach. Int J Epidemiol, 2010; 39(1):89–94.
18.
VaradhanR, SeegerJ. Chapter 3: Estimation and Reporting of Heterogeneity of Treatment Effects. Developing a Protocol for Observational Comparative Effectiveness Research: A User’s:. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Guide: (US); 2013.
19.
MoherD, HopewellS, SchulzK, et al.Consolidated standards of reporting trials group. CONSORT 2010 explanation and elaboration: Updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ, 2010(8):63.
20.
HussainJ, BlandM, LanganD, et al.Quality of missing data reporting and handling in palliative care trials demonstrates that further development of the CONSORT statement is required: A systematic review. J Clin Epidemiol, 2017; 88.
21.
SterneJAC, SavovićJ, PageMJ, et al.RoB 2: A revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ, 2019; 366:l4898.
22.
CurrowD, WheelerJ, GlareP, et al.A framework for generalizability in palliative care. J Pain Symptom Manage, 2009; 37(3):373–386.
23.
BakitasM, LyonsK, DixonJ, AhlesT. Palliative care program effectiveness research: Developing rigor in sampling design, conduct, and reporting. J Pain Symptom Manage, 2006; 31(3):270–284.
24.
LundhA, LexchinJ, MintzesB, et al.Industry sponsorship and research outcome. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2017; 2(2):MR000033.
25.
GreenlandS, SennSJ, RothmanKJ, et al.Statistical tests, P values, confidence intervals, and power: A guide to misinterpretations. Eur J Epidemiol, 2016; 31(4):337–350.
26.
HuiD, ZhukovskyDS, BrueraE. Which treatment is better? Ascertaining patient preferences with crossover randomized controlled trials. J Pain Symptom Manage, 2015; 49(3):625–631.
27.
CurrowD, FazekasB, BrownL, et al.Participant Safety in Multisite, Randomized, Double-Blind. Placebo-controlled clinical trials in hospice/palliative care. Data from the Contracted Studies of the Australian National Palliative Care Clinical Studies Collaborative, 2024; 27(1).
28.
JunqueiraD, ZorzelaL, GolderS, et al.CONSORT Harms 2022 statement, explanation, and elaboration: Updated guideline for the reporting of harms in randomized trials. BMJ, 2023; 158.
29.
SinghS, LokeY. Drug safety assessment in clinical trials: Methodological challenges and opportunities. Trials, 2012; 13:138.
30.
CurrowD, RowettD, DoogueM, et al.An international initiative to create a collaborative for pharmacovigilance in hospice and palliative care clinical practice. J Palliat Med, 2012; 15(3):282–286.
31.
HeeleyE. Detecting Safety Issues in Clinical Trials. Evidence-Based Pharmacovigilance Methods in Pharmacology and Toxicology. Humana Press. New York; 2018.
32.
MercadanteS. The benefits of practical clinical trials over traditional randomized clinical trials for opioid management. Pain Rep, 2018:11.
33.
ChenE, RiffinC, ReidM, et al.Why is high-quality research on palliative care so hard to do? Barriers to improved research from a survey of palliative care researchers. J Palliat Med, 2014; 17(7).
34.
CurrowD, TiemanJ, GreeneA, et al.Refining a checklist for reporting patient populations and service characteristics in. Hospice and Palliative Care Research, 2012; 43(5).
35.
GovaniS, HigginsP. How to read a clinical trial paper: A lesson in basic trial statistics. Gastroenterol Hepatol (N Y), 2012; 8(4).
