↓ Skip to main content

Towards a standardised approach for evaluating guidelines and guidance documents on palliative sedation: study protocol

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Palliative Care, July 2014
Altmetric Badge

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
50 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Towards a standardised approach for evaluating guidelines and guidance documents on palliative sedation: study protocol
Published in
BMC Palliative Care, July 2014
DOI 10.1186/1472-684x-13-34
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ebun Abarshi, Judith Rietjens, Augusto Caraceni, Sheila Payne, Luc Deliens, Lieve Van Den Block

Abstract

Sedation in palliative care has received growing attention in recent years; and so have guidelines, position statements, and related literature that provide recommendations for its practice. Yet little is known collectively about the content, scope and methodological quality of these materials. According to research, there are large variations in palliative sedation practice, depending on the definition and methodology used. However, a standardised approach to comparing and contrasting related documents, across countries, associations and governmental bodies is lacking. This paper reports on a protocol designed to enable thorough and systematic comparison of guidelines and guidance documents on palliative sedation.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 50 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 2%
Unknown 49 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 10 20%
Researcher 8 16%
Student > Bachelor 6 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 6%
Other 9 18%
Unknown 10 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 25 50%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 16%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 4%
Unspecified 1 2%
Computer Science 1 2%
Other 3 6%
Unknown 10 20%