Palliat Med. 2010 Jul;24(5):462-8. doi: 10.1177/0269216310368452. Epub 2010 May 25.

Defining priorities in prognostication research: results of a consensus workshop.

Palliative medicine

C Stevinson, N Preston, C Todd,

PMID: 20501513 DOI: 10.1177/0269216310368452

Abstract

PURPOSE: To establish consensus among palliative care researchers on the priorities for prognostication research.

METHODS: A nominal group technique was employed involving palliative care researchers attending a workshop within a scientific meeting on prognostication. Participants worked in small facilitated groups to generate future research questions which were amalgamated and rated according to importance.

RESULTS: Twenty-five meeting delegates took part in the workshop including 10 palliative care physicians and four nurses, one dietician, and 10 academic researchers, all of whom had experience and/or interest in prognosis research. A total of 40 research questions were generated and after prioritization ratings, the top five questions were: (1) How valid are prognostic tools? (=2) Can we use prognostic criteria as entry criteria for research? (=2) How do we judge the impact of a prognostic score in clinical practice? (4) What is the best way of presenting survival data to patients? (5) What is the most user-friendly validated tool?

CONCLUSIONS: Although a wide range of research questions relating to prognostication were identified, the strongest priority to emerge from the consensus data concerned the validity of prognostic tools. Further research to validate existing tools is essential to ensure their clinical value.

MeSH terms

• Consensus
• Humans
• Palliative Care / organization & administration
• Prognosis
• Research / organization & administration
• Research Design

Publication Types

• Consensus Development Conference
• Journal Article
• Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't