Dawon Baik1, David Russell2, Lizeyka Jordan3, Frances Dooley3, Kathryn H Bowles4, Ruth M Masterson Creber5. 1. 1 School of Nursing, Columbia University , New York, New York. 2. 2 Appalachian State University , Boone, North Carolina, Visiting Nurse Service of New York, New York, New York. 3. 3 Visiting Nurse Service of New York, New York, New York. 4. 4 School of Nursing, University of Pennsylvania , Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Visiting Nurse Service of New York, New York, New York. 5. 5 School of Nursing, Columbia University , New York, New York.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Palliative Performance Scale (PPS) has been widely used for survival prediction among patients with cancer; however, few studies have reviewed PPS scores in heterogeneous palliative care populations across multiple care settings. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this systematic review was to determine how the PPS tool has been used to estimate survival at the end of life. METHODS: This review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched for the existing literature published from 2008 to 2017. We synthesized study characteristics, the PPS scores at baseline, and primary outcomes, and explored differences in survival estimates by diagnosis. The quality of the studies was assessed using the Good ReseArch for Comparative Effectiveness (GRACE) checklist. RESULTS: Seventeen studies were included in this review (nine with cancer and eight with mixed diagnoses). All included studies reported that the PPS exhibited a significant association with survival. Survival estimates ranged from 1 to 3 days for patients with PPS scores of 10% compared with 5 to 36 days for those with scores of 30%. The categorical cut-points for the PPS scores were not consistently reported across studies. CONCLUSION: This review provides a broad overview on the prognostic value of the PPS tool for survival among multiple patient populations across care settings. Consistent reporting of PPS scores would facilitate the comparison of survival estimates across end-of-life diagnoses.
BACKGROUND: The Palliative Performance Scale (PPS) has been widely used for survival prediction among patients with cancer; however, few studies have reviewed PPS scores in heterogeneous palliative care populations across multiple care settings. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this systematic review was to determine how the PPS tool has been used to estimate survival at the end of life. METHODS: This review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched for the existing literature published from 2008 to 2017. We synthesized study characteristics, the PPS scores at baseline, and primary outcomes, and explored differences in survival estimates by diagnosis. The quality of the studies was assessed using the Good ReseArch for Comparative Effectiveness (GRACE) checklist. RESULTS: Seventeen studies were included in this review (nine with cancer and eight with mixed diagnoses). All included studies reported that the PPS exhibited a significant association with survival. Survival estimates ranged from 1 to 3 days for patients with PPS scores of 10% compared with 5 to 36 days for those with scores of 30%. The categorical cut-points for the PPS scores were not consistently reported across studies. CONCLUSION: This review provides a broad overview on the prognostic value of the PPS tool for survival among multiple patient populations across care settings. Consistent reporting of PPS scores would facilitate the comparison of survival estimates across end-of-life diagnoses.
Authors: Gordon Linklater; Sally Lawton; Shona Fielding; Lisa Macaulay; David Carroll; Dong Pang Journal: BMJ Support Palliat Care Date: 2012-03-31 Impact factor: 3.568
Authors: Christopher M McGreevy; Sarah Bryczkowski; Sri Ram Pentakota; Ana Berlin; Sangeeta Lamba; Anne C Mosenthal Journal: Am J Surg Date: 2016-06-18 Impact factor: 2.565
Authors: Raymond W Jang; Valerie B Caraiscos; Nadia Swami; Subrata Banerjee; Ernie Mak; Ebru Kaya; Gary Rodin; John Bryson; Julia Z Ridley; Lisa W Le; Camilla Zimmermann Journal: J Oncol Pract Date: 2014-08-12 Impact factor: 3.840
Authors: Pamela S Harris; Tapati Stalam; Kevin A Ache; Joan E Harrold; Teresa Craig; Joan Teno; Eugenia Smither; Meredith Dougherty; David Casarett Journal: J Palliat Med Date: 2014-06-12 Impact factor: 2.947