Are the MORECare guidelines on reporting of attrition in palliative care research populations appropriate? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials
Palliative care trials have higher rates of attrition. The MORECare guidance recommends applying classifications of attrition to report attrition to help interpret trial results. The guidance separates attrition into three categories: attrition due to death, illness or at random. The aim of our study is to apply the MORECare classifications on reported attrition rates in trials.
A systematic review was conducted and attrition classifications retrospectively applied. Four databases, EMBASE; Medline, CINHAL and PsychINFO, were searched for randomised controlled trials of palliative care populations from 01.01.2010 to 08.10.2016. This systematic review is part of a larger review looking at recruitment to randomised controlled trials in palliative care, from January 1990 to early October 2016. We ran random-effect models with and without moderators and descriptive statistics to calculate rates of missing data.
One hundred nineteen trials showed a total attrition of 29% (95% CI 28 to 30%). We applied the MORECare classifications of attrition to the 91 papers that contained sufficient information. The main reason for attrition was attrition due to death with a weighted mean of 31.6% (SD 27.4) of attrition cases. Attrition due to illness was cited as the reason for 17.6% (SD 24.5) of participants. In 50.8% (SD 26.5) of cases, the attrition was at random. We did not observe significant differences in missing data between total attrition in non-cancer patients (26%; 95% CI 18–34%) and cancer patients (24%; 95% CI 20–29%). There was significantly more missing data in outpatients (29%; 95% CI 22–36%) than inpatients (16%; 95% CI 10–23%). We noted increased attrition in trials with longer durations.
Reporting the cause of attrition is useful in helping to understand trial results. Prospective reporting using the MORECare classifications should improve our understanding of future trials.
KeywordsRandomised controlled trials attrition missing data palliative care systematic review MORECare guidelines
Attrition due to death
Attrition due to illness
Attrition at random
Interval of Confidence
Completely missing at random
Missing at random
Missing not at-random
Randomised controlled trials
Attrition is a major concern for accurate analysis of all trials and can influence the results of a study through potentially biasing the treatment effects and reducing the ability to detect differences [1, 2, 3]. Furthermore, conducting research with palliative care patients can be particularly challenging because of high levels of missing data and/or attrition due to high mortality rates and symptom burden [1, 4].
Cathegories of missing data 
Completely missing at random (CMAR)
when missingness may depend on single variables
Missing at random (MAR)
when missingness is not related to the specified variables
Missing not at random (MNAR)
when missingness is related to a specific variable
A crucial aspect of clinical trials is the proportion of missing data and how researchers approach this to avoid serious biases . The proportion of missing data is directly related to the quality of statistical inferences that can be made. Standard trial guidance suggests that the levels of missing data should be between 5 and 20%, meanwhile previous palliative care research has shown levels of missing data up to 80% of the total results . Hussain’s (2016) review of the amount of missing data in clinical trials relating to palliative care populations found missing data levels of over 20% in half of the studies with an overall rate of 23.1%. In a detailed investigation of missing data in cancer trials involving palliative care populations Hui et al. (2013) found an attrition rate of 26% for the primary endpoint and 44% for participants reaching the end of the study . Hui et al. also concluded that some investigators struggled to attribute the cause of the missing data.
Once the possible reasons for missing data are determined, the next step is to decide how to deal with them . The method used to estimate the missing data needs to be reported, since different methods of estimating missing data, based on different assumptions, could lead to different conclusions . For this reason, some literature suggests using more than one method for analysis and to discuss the potential bias of missing data . This is particularly important for trials conducted in the field of palliative care, where most of the missing data are MNAR that could be estimated and minimised through the study design and taken account of in the final analysis. Moreover, there are no specific statistical methods recommended to analyise missing data not at random .
General guidance on the management of missing data in palliative care studies stated that missing data and attrition should be expected in a palliative care population and low levels of missing data or attrition could lead you to question whether the population was infact a palliative care population . Another issue in trial reporting is describing or even deciding who the total palliative care population is. Only by defining this group can all potential participants be screened for eligiblility. In many hospitals a large number of patients could be deemed eligible for a study but they are spread out across different departments and include both out and inpatients. It is unclear what the usual practice is for identifying and screening palliative care populations and whether, for example, this means screening patients from particular outpatient clinics or carrying out database searches of diagnoses or symptoms .
Overall when reporting trials including palliative care populations three main areas were seen as requiring more scrutiny: classification of attrition, levels of attrition and their accompanying imputation methods and descriptions of trial populations.
In this study we wanted to investigate whether the MORECare classifications on reporting attrition in trials can be retrospectively applied to data retrieved from a systematic review on attrition in palliative care and thus help to better understand the reported results.
To describe whether the MORECare attrition classifications could be retrospectively applied to palliative care randomised controlled trials.
To describe whether there were any statistical differences between cancer and non-cancer patients and between the enrolment settings.
To describe any methods used to handle missing data.
To describe if there was any correlation between the length of the time to primary outcome measure and the total attrition rate.
We conducted a systematic review to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs) conducted in the last 5 years in a palliative care field. This review followed the methods of a Cochrane review  . This systematic review is part of a larger review looking at recruitment to RCTs in palliative care which covers the period from January 1990 to early October 2016 . From this larger review, we selected randomised controlled trials involving palliative care populations from the last 5 years as reporting was likely to be of a better standard.
Identification and selection of studies
Databases searched with search strategy
Medline via EBSCOhost
- terminal care
- terminal care/ (not exploded)
- palliative care/
- palliative medicine/
- randomi*ed. controlled trial*
- randomised controlled trial/ (publication and topic)
- limits: human, 01/01/2010 to 08/10/2016,Randomised Controlled Trials
PsycINFO via EBSCOhost
- terminal care
- palliative care/
- terminally ill patients/
- terminal cancer/
- clinical trials/
- randomi*ed. controlled trial*
- limits 01/01/2010 to 08/10/2016, clinical trial, human.
CINHAL via EBSCOhost
- terminal care
- palliative care/
- terminal care/ (not exploded),
- Randomi*ed. Controlled Trial*,
- Clinical Trials/ (exploded),
- randomised controlled trial/
- limits 01/01/2010 to 08/10/2016, human and exclude Medline
Embase via Ovid
- terminal care
- exp. palliative therapy/
- terminal care/
- randomi*ed. controlled*
- randomized controlled trial/
- limits human, RCTs, 01/01/2010 to 08/10/2016
Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria
Data extraction and analysis
Data were extracted by two independent reviewers (AO & PS or LD). If no agreement could be reached about inclusion of data extraction, an arbitrator (NP) was consulted. If there was insufficient information to make a decision about data, authors were contacted via email. If information were not forthcoming then the paper was excluded.
Data were collected to analyse the primary aim of the study, which was the retrospective application of the MORECare classifications on attributing the cause of attrition. We used the same criteria as Hussein (2016) to identify attrition, namely the number of participants lost by the time of the evaluation of the primary end point or final assessment if the primary endpoint was not made. The primary outcome was chosen because it was the most important outcome. Moreover it should have been defined at the time the study was designed to reduce bias  . In addition, we included attrition cases which occured between consent and randomization where available. Reasons for attrition were determined retrospectively to one of the MORECare classifications of ADD, ADI or AAR based upon decriptions within the paper. We used weighted means to describe the proportion of missing data.
To describe whether there were any statistical differences between cancer and non-cancer patients and between enrollment setting, we ran random effect models with and without moderators, using the Metafor package . We aggregated double arcsine transformed values computing a weighted mean (with inverse-variance weight). To ease interpretation, we back transformed averages to estimated true proportions with corresponding 95% confidence intervals using Miller’s formula .
We used descriptive analysis to describe which imputation methods were used. The mean length of the time to primary outcome was calculated to assess whether length of stay was correlated with increased attrition rate using the Pearson correlation. Because the heterogeneity of data, it was not possible to calculate any correlation with patients’ overall survival, primary outcome and attrition.
The quality of the trial was not assessed as the focus of the review was on attrition rates as recorded in the study.
characteristics of included studies
Total attrition rate
Attrition rate -intervention arm
Attrition rate - control arm
Abernethy, A 
Abernethy, A 
Ahmedzai, S 
Ando, M 
Aoun, S 
Barton, R 
Bausewein, C 
Beijer, S 
Bennett, M 
Bhatnagar, S 
Brännström, M 
Breitbart, W 
Breitbart, W 
Brisbois, T 
Bruera, E 
Bruera, E 
Chan, C 
Chen, H 
Cheville, A 
Chochinov, H M 
Chow, E 
Cruciani, R 
De Raaf, P 
Del Fabbro, E 
Donovan, H 
Edmonds, P 
El-Jawahri, A 
Epstein, A 
Farquhar, M 
Fischer, S 
Galbraith, S 
Gebbia, V 
Greer, J 
Gutgsell, K 
Heisler, M 
Henke, C 
Herr, K 
Homsi, J 
Hopkinson, J 
Hui, D 
Hui, D 
Ishiki, H 
Israel, F 
Johnson, J 
Jones, L 
Jones, L 
Julião, M 
Kerr, C 
Kirste, S 
Lee, C 
Liao, J 
Lim, J 
Lloyd-Williams, M 
López-Sendín, N 
Lundholm, K 
McLean, L 
Mok, E 
Ng, C 
Oldervoll, L 
Oxberry, S 
Pantilat, S 
Pelayo-Alvarez, M 
Popa-Velea, O 
Portenoy, R 
Rhondali, W 
Ringash, J 
Salas, S 
Schofield, P 
Sidebottom, A 
Stein, R 
Sternberg, C 
Suh, S 
Temel, J 
Uitdehaag, M 
Uitdehaag, M 
Vogel, R 
Volandes, A 
Wallen, G 
Wentlandt, K 
Wyatt, G 
Zaghloul, M 
Zimmermann, C 
Laltanpui, C 
Litterini, A 
Mariani, P 
8/ 43 (18.6%)
Ng, C 
Strong, R 
Vermandere, M 
Agrwal, K 
Ahmed, N 
Anter, A 
Badr, H 
Bakitas, M 
Berwouts, D 
Buckingham, S 
Chan, K 
Currow, D 
Davies, H 
Eldeeb, N 
Fallon, M 
Hardy, J 
Hopp, F 
Ibrahim, I 
Matlock, D 
Jensen, W 
Jacobs, C 
Jatoi, A 
Kwekkeboom, K 
Lund Rasmussen, C 
Maltoni, M 
McMillan, S 
Nava, S 
Rief, H 
Saha, A 
Wadhwa, D 
Warth, M 
Warth, M 
Yousef, A 
Tarumi, Y 
Mc Corke,R 
Wong, F 
We needed to decide which was the intervention and the control arm in 7 studies, because it was not specified by the authors. The median sample size was 75 (IQR 106). Among all the collected randomised controlled trials,few had a specific study design: 24 studies were feasibility/pilot studies, 3 were cluster trials, 2 were cross-over trials, one a fast-track trial. One study was designed to test the dose of a new drug. Four studies involved patients and their carers and one study patients and primary physicians. The median duration of studies to primary outcome measure was 7 weeks (IQR 11) with some studies having an intervention length of only a few hours or days. Thirteen studies did not mention the intervention duration.
In 5 studies participants were recruited from the hospice and in 28 from the hospital but it is unclear if these were inpatients and/or outpatients. The most common specific site mentioned in 47 studies was a ‘clinic’ which presumably meant outpatients. From the participants 25% were recruited from inpatient services, 30% from outpatient services and 16% recruited from both out patients and inpatients. For the remaining participants no indication was given as to whether they were inpatients or outpatients. Most patients had cancer (76%) with 20% having a non-cancer condition including heart failure, neurological conditions, respiratory, renal and liver disease or frail elderly populations. The remaining studies (4%) did not specify the patient’s condition.
Application of MORECare classifications
Weighted means attrition using MORECare criteria (n = 91)
Type of Attrition
Weighted Mean %
Attrition due to Death
Attrition due to Illness
Attrition at random
We applied the MORECare classifications of attrition to 91 out of 119 papers that contained sufficient information on the cause of missing data. This reflects the difficulty in attributing the cause of missing data based upon the authors’ descriptions in the published papers. Some authors reported withdrawal as a cause of attrition, without specifying if this was related to a specific cause such as adverse events.
We found the main reason for attrition was attrition due to death (ADD) and accounted for a weighted mean of 31.6% (SD 27.4) of attrition cases. Attrition due to illness (ADI) was cited as the reason for 17.6% (SD 24.5) of participants. For 7% of total participants they left due to adverse events. In 50.8% (SD 26.5) of cases, the attrition was at random (AAR) with reasons such as patients being no longer contactable.
The weighted average attrition across all studies was 29% (95% CI 28–30%). The statistical analysis including participants’ diagnosis as a covariate (cancer vs non-cancer), was possibile in 113 studies. We did not observe significant differences between groups (non-cancer patients, 26%; 95% CI 18–34%; cancer patients, 24%; 95% CI 20–29%).
We were able to calculate whether including the study setting, inpatients and non-inpatients, as a covariate in 68 studies. We found significant differences between the two groups (p = 0.01), with a higher attrition rate for outpatients (29%; 95% CI 22–36%) than inpatients (16%; 95% CI 10–23%). These estimated proportions apperared to be all heterogeneous (ps < 0.0001). In some studies, authors did not distinguish the amount of inpatients for the amount of outpatients, thus it was not possible to conduct any statistical analysis.
Twenty trials reported data about attrition between enrolment and randomisation. These pre-randomisation data were too heterogeneous to be analysed. Although only 20 trials reported these missing data it may have been true for other studies too but not mentioned. Moreover, some authors commented upon the level of missing data in their papers, whilst in others no comment was made but attrition data was calculated from the CONSORT flow-chart. Because the data were heterogeneous, it was not possible to calculate any statistical difference between the studies that commented upon attrition and those studies that did not.
Use of imputation methods for primary endpoint
Number of studies
Missing at random
Treated as separate category
Last observed carried forward analysis
Last observation carried forward based on intention to treat analysis
Logistic regression method
Regression model incorporating baseline covariates
Conservative statistic (NMAR)
Baseline group mean imputed as a null effect both for pre and post-intervention analysis
Continuous time variable with random slope in a longitudinal model
Monte Carlo error computation model including all the variables to be used in the analysis
Multiple imputation stathistical methods
As previously described, imputation methods should be reported, since different methods of estimating missing data, based on different assumption, could lead to different conclusions . For this reason, part of literature suggests using more than one method for analysis and to discuss the potential bias of missing data . Despite these recommendations, authors used different multiple imputation methods in only 15 studies. These methods were not uniform and different among each study.
Among the feasibility studies, one considered missing data as a random effect, five used a single imputation method (Area Under the Curve analysis, last observation carried forward, intention to treat analysis, conservative statistic). Only in one study, authors did not impute missing data because the main intention of the study was the feasibility of the intervention and also to explore the nature of missing data.
In few other studies , authors used different non statistical methods to deal with missing data, for example adapting their protocol to reduce the number of missing data (i.e. adapting the time of follow up or a specific questionnaire).
Length of intervention
In 108 out of the 136 studies, it was possible to describe the length of the intervention. In the remaining studies this was not possible because it was not clearly reported by the authors. The median time to primary outcome measure was 7 weeks. There was a significant correlation (r = 0.37, p < 0.01) between the length of time to primary outcome measure and the total attrition rate, meaning that the longer the time to primary outcome the increased chance of attrition.
In this review we found that the MOREcare classifications could be applied retrospectively in about 67% of studies. In the remaining papers this was not possible due to insufficient details in reporting the reasons for missing data. We could not calculate any analysis in relation to the reason for attrition using the MORECare classifications due to insufficient data. Vague phrases such as withdrawn do not inform the reader as it is still unclear what the the reasons for the withdrawal were, for example was it due to progression of the illness or side effects of a drug or another reason? Dumville et al. (2006) recommend reporting the causes of attrition clearly to help understand the findings of a study  and applying the MORECare classifications gives an indication of not only what has happened in a trial but also the characteristics of the population involved.
Our review emphasises the need to identify primary outcome measures which should be measured sooner than later given the large amount of missing data in longer studies. Given the median time to primary endpoint was only 7 weeks, this shows that we are looking at end points potentially shorter than this but obviously this depends upon the focus of the study.
Palliative care populations are difficult to identify and these findings show a variation in where researchers looked for potential participants. Whilst we were able to make some comment upon where populations were identified from, this was difficult to extract as it was poorly recorded.
The level of missing data was higher than in other reviews (Hussain 2016; Hui 2013) which may reflect a broader definition of a palliative population. This is also reflected in the higher attrition rates noted in the non-cancer population and non-hospital populations. In the study by Hui (2013) the lower rates of attrition were in a cancer population based in one hospital. Modifications in trial design should be made for trials involving non-cancer, community based populations, as attrition rates were shown to be highest in these groups. Interestingly, we identified attrition even before randomisation. Perhaps this is something trial steering committees could monitor to assess the cause of attrition using the MORECare classifications, as it may help decide if attrition is due to the trial design or the population under study.
Only 26% of studies used any sort of imputation method for the primary outcome. All studies should comment upon missing data and notably report attrition following CONSORT guidelines not only for the primary outcome, but also for all the obtained results. Given all these studies were completed since 2010 you would expect this figure to be higher. With a rise in publishers asking for guidance in reporting of research to be followed hopefully this figure will increase. Moreover, according to the different type of missing data, different imputation methods can be used and it is recommended to use multiple imputation methods as a powerful tool for handling missing data with a sensitivity analysis .
One major concern about our review is that we relied upon our interpretation of descriptions of populations which we then decreed as palliative or not. Although the reviewers used the same definitions, their interpretation of the studies could have biased the reported results. Moreover, the causes of attrition have been interpreted according to the reasons given by the authors of the studies, which were not always clear. Hence some studies were excluded from this review because the causes of attrition were not clear. This may have changed the findings. As described, the high heterogeneity of collected data prevented further statistical analyses, such as calculation of the rates of attrition according to whether participants were in/outpatients, had cancer or not, or, according to type of attrition (ADD, ADI and AAR). The fact that most of the studies were about cancer patients limits the generalisability of our study in non-oncological settings. Moreover, most of the included studies were conducted in English-language nations.
This review included only randomised controlled trials, but more research is needed about the impact of missing data in other types of study design . We assumed that from 2010, studies had a better standard of reporting and handling missing data. Further analysis about the correlation between the year of publication and the rate of missing data could have been assessed to analyse whether the reporting of missing data has improved over time.
The MORECare classifications provided a useful tool in highlighting attrition due to death in a readily accessible manner. In particular higher rates of attrition should be expected in longer trials, non-cancer andcommunity based palliative care populations. By applying the MORECare classifications we should be able to characterise trial populations more easily to enable a better understanding of the trials results. Moreover, the use of these classifications may help the readers to understand if authors described clearly the rate of missing data and if authors tried to take into account the rate of attrition in the interpretation of their results. The MoreCare guidelines could also help researchers to better design and conduct their studies in palliative care settings. In fact, the difficult we had in the collection of the data shows that more efforts should be done to report the results of the studies and to handle with missing information that could potentially bias the final results.
AO made a substantial contribution to the concept and design of the work; acquisition, analysis and interpretation of data; DL made a substantial contribution to the acquisition, analysis and interpretation of data; SP made a substantial contribution to the acquisition, analysis and interpretation of data; PAG made a substantial contribution to the statistical analysis and interpretation of data; NP drafted the article and revised it critically for important intellectual content. Approved the version to be published. All authors have read and approved the final manuscript.
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Ethics approval and consent to participate
Consent for publication
Nancy Preston is a member of the editorial board (Associate Editor) of BMC Palliative Care. She had no role in the editorial process of this article.
- 1.Preston NJ, Fayers P, Walters SJ, Pilling M, Grande GE, Short V, et al. Recommendations for managing missing data, attrition and response shift in palliative and end-of-life care research: part of the MORECare research method guidance on statistical issues. Palliat Med. 2013;27:899–907.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 3.Zhang Y, Alyass A, Vanniyasingam T, Sadeghirad B, Florez ID, Pichika SC, et al. A systematic survey of the methods literature on the reporting quality and optimal methods of handling participants with missing outcome data for continuous outcomes in randomized controlled trials. J Clin Epidemiol. 2017;88:67–80.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 5.Bruera E, Higginson I, von Gunten CF, Morita T. Textbook of palliative medicine and supportive care: CRC publisher; 2015.Google Scholar
- 8.Higginson IJ, Evans CJ, Grande G, Preston N, Morgan M, McCrone P, et al. Evaluating complex interventions in end of life care: the MORECare statement on good practice generated by a synthesis of transparent expert consultations and systematic reviews. BMC Med. 2013;11.Google Scholar
- 9.Equator Network. Enanching the Quality and Transparency in Health Care Research [Available from: http://www.equator-network.org/.
- 13.Mallinckrodt CH, Kenward MG. Conceptual Considerations regarding Endpoints, Hypotheses, and Analyses for Incomplete Longitudinal Clinical Trial Data. Therapeutic Innovation & Regulatory Science. 2010:449–58.Google Scholar
- 15.Dunleavy L, Walshe C, Preston N. What Are the Barriers and Facilitators to Patient and Carer Recruitment to Randomised Controlled Trials in Palliative Care? A Systematic Review with Narrative Synthesis. Synthesis15th World Congress of the European Association for Palliative Care; 2017. p. 211.Google Scholar
- 16.Dunleavy L, Walshe C, Oriani A, Preston N. Using the ‘social marketing mix framework’ to explore recruitment barriers and facilitators in palliative care randomised controlled trials? A narrative synthesis review. Palliative Medicine. 2018.Google Scholar
- 21.World Health Organisation. Definition of palliative care. 2005.Google Scholar
- 23.Viechtbauer W. Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor package. Journal of Statistical Software. 2010:1–48.Google Scholar
- 24.Miller JJ. The inverse of the Freeman–Tukey double arcsine transformation. The American Statistician 1978. p. 138.Google Scholar
- 27.Abernethy AP, McDonald CF, Frith PA, Clark K, Herndon IJE, Marcello J, et al. Effect of palliative oxygen versus room air in relief of breathlessness in patients with refractory dyspnoea: a double-blind, randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2010;376(9743):784–93.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 28.Abernethy AP, Currow DC, Shelby-James T, Rowett D, May F, Samsa GP, et al. Delivery strategies to optimize resource utilization and performance status for patients with advanced life-limiting illness: results from the "palliative care trial" [ISRCTN 81117481]. J Pain Symptom Manag. 2013;45(3):488–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 29.Ahmedzai SH, Nauck F, Bar-Sela G, Bosse B, Leyendecker P, Hopp M. A randomized, double-blind, active-controlled, double-dummy, parallel-group study to determine the safety and efficacy of oxycodone/naloxone prolonged-release tablets in patients with moderate/severe, chronic cancer pain. Palliat Med. 2012;26(1):50–60.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 33.Bausewein C, Booth S, Gysels M, Kuhnbach R, Higginson IJ. Effectiveness of a hand-held fan for breathlessness: A randomised phase II trial. BMC Palliative Care. 2010;9(22).Google Scholar
- 34.Beijer S, Hupperets PS, Van Den Borne BEEM, Wijckmans NEG, Spreeuwenberg C, Van Den Brandt PA, et al. Randomized clinical trial on the effects of adenosine 5′-triphosphate infusions on quality of life, functional status, and fatigue in preterminal cancer patients. J Pain Symptom Manag. 2010;40(4):520–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 36.Bhatnagar S, Joshi S, Rana SPS, Mishra S, Garg R, Ahmed SM. Bedside ultrasound-guided celiac plexus neurolysis in upper abdominal cancer patients: a randomized, prospective study for comparison of percutaneous bilateral paramedian vs. unilateral paramedian needle-insertion technique. Pain Practice: The Official Journal Of World Institute Of Pain. 2014;14(2):E63–E8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 40.Brisbois TD, de Kock IH, Watanabe SM, Mirhosseini M, Lamoureux DC, Chasen M, et al. Delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol may palliate altered chemosensory perception in cancer patients: results of a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled pilot trial. Ann Oncol. 2011;22(9):2086–93.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 41.Bruera E, Yennurajalingam S, Palmer JL, Perez-Cruz PE, Frisbee-Hume S, Allo JA, et al. Methylphenidate and/or a nursing telephone intervention for fatigue in patients with advanced cancer: a randomized, placebo-controlled, phase II trial. J Clin Oncol Off J Am Soc Clin Oncol. 2013;31(19):2421–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 44.Chen HW, Lin IH, Chen YJ, Chang KH, Wu MH, Su WH, et al. A novel infusible botanically-derived drug, PG2, for cancer-related fatigue: a phase II double-blind, randomized placebo-controlled study. Clinical and investigative medicine. Medecine clinique et experimentale. 2012;35(1):E1–11.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 45.Cheville AL, Kollasch J, Vandenberg J, Shen T, Grothey A, Gamble G, et al. A home-based exercise program to improve function, fatigue, and sleep quality in patients with stage IV lung and colorectal cancer: a randomized controlled trial. J Pain Symptom Manag. 2013;45(5):811–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 48.Cruciani RA, Revuelta M, Dvorkin E, Homel P, Lesage P, Esteban-Cruciani N. L-carnitine supplementation in patients with HIV/AIDS and fatigue: a double-blind, placebo-controlled pilot study. HIV/AIDS - Research and Palliative Care 2015;7:65-73.Google Scholar
- 49.De Raaf PJ, De Klerk C, Timman R, Busschbach JJV, Oldenmenger WH, Van Der Rijt CCD. Systematic monitoring and treatment of physical symptoms to alleviate fatigue in patients with advanced cancer: a randomized controlled trial. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31(6):716–23.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 55.Farquhar MC, Prevost AT, McCrone P, Brafman-Price B, Bentley A, Higginson IJ, et al. Is a specialist breathlessness service more effective and cost-effective for patients with advanced cancer and their carers than standard care? Findings of a mixed-method randomised controlled trial. BMC Med. 2014;194.Google Scholar
- 59.Gebbia V, Lorusso V, Galetta D, Caruso MM, Palomba G, Riccardi F, et al. First-line cisplatin with docetaxel or vinorelbine in patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: a quality of life directed phase II randomized trial of Gruppo Oncologico Italia Meridionale. Lung Cancer. 2010;69(2):218–24.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 67.Hopkinson JB, Fenlon DR, Okamoto I, Wright DNM, Scott I, Addington-Hall JM, et al. The deliverability, acceptability, and perceived effect of the macmillan approach to weight loss and eating difficulties: a phase II, cluster-randomized, exploratory trial of a psychosocial intervention for weight- and eating-related distress in people with advanced cancer. J Pain Symptom Manag. 2010;40(5):684–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 72.Johnson JR, Burnell-Nugent M, Lossignol D, Ganae-Motan ED, Potts R, Fallon MT. Multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study of the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of THC:CBD extract and THC extract in patients with intractable cancer-related pain. J Pain Symptom Manag. 2010;39(2):167–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 75.Juliao M, Barbosa A, Oliveira F. Efficacy of dignity therapy in psychological and existential distress of terminally-ill patients: randomized controlled trial. Palliat Med. 2012;26(4):440.Google Scholar
- 86.Ng CG, Boks MPM, Roes KCB, Zainal NZ, Sulaiman AH, Tan SB, et al. Rapid response to methylphenidate as an add-on therapy to mirtazapine in the treatment of major depressive disorder in terminally ill cancer patients: a four-week, randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled study. Eur Neuropsychopharmacol. 2014;24(4):491–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 91.Popa-Velea O, Cernat B, Tambu A. Influence of personalized therapeutic approach on quality of life and psychiatric comorbidity in patients with advanced colonic cancer requiring palliative care. J Medicine Life. 2010;3(3):343–7.Google Scholar
- 102.Uitdehaag MJ, van der Velden LA, de Boer MF, Spaander MCW, Steyerberg EW, Kuipers EJ, et al. Recordings of consultations are beneficial in the transition from curative to palliative cancer care: a pilot-study in patients with oesophageal or head and neck cancer. Eur J Oncol Nurs. 2012;16(2):109–14.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 103.Uitdehaag MJ, Van Putten PG, Van Eijck CHJ, Verschuur EML, Van Der Gaast A, Pek CJ, et al. Nurse-led follow-up at home vs. conventional medical outpatient clinic follow-up in patients with incurable upper gastrointestinal cancer: a randomized study. J Pain Symptom Manag. 2014;47(3):518–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 113.Mariani P, Blumberg J, Landau A, Lebrun-Jezekova D, Botton E, Beatrix O, et al. Symptomatic treatment with lanreotide microparticles in inoperable bowel obstruction resulting from peritoneal carcinomatosis: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase III study: editorial comment. Obstet Gynecol Surv. 2013;68(6):437–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 116.Vermandere M, Warmenhoven F, Van Severen E, De Lepeleire J, Aertgeerts B. Spiritual history-taking in palliative home care: a cluster randomized controlled trial. Palliat Med. 2014;28(6):639.Google Scholar
- 121.Bajwah S, Ross JR, Wells AU, Mohammed K, Oyebode C, Birring SS, et al. Palliative care for patients with advanced fibrotic lung disease: a randomised controlled phase II and feasibility trial of a community case conference. Thorax. 2015;23.Google Scholar
- 123.Berwouts D, De Wolf K, De Neve W, Olteanu LA, Lambert B, Speleers B, et al. Variations in target volume definition and dose to normal tissue using anatomic versus biological imaging (<sup>18</sup>F-FDG-PET) in the treatment of bone metastases: results from a 3-arm randomized phase II trial. Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Oncology. 2016.Google Scholar
- 124.Buckingham S, Kendall M, Ferguson S, Macnee W, Sheikh A, White P, et al. NPJ Primary Care Respiratory Medicine. 2015;25(15020).Google Scholar
- 125.Chan KY, Yip T, Yap DYH, Sham MK, Wong YC, Lau VWK, et al. Enhanced psychosocial support for caregiver burden for patients with chronic kidney failure choosing not to be treated by Dialysis or transplantation: a pilot randomized controlled trial. Am J Kid Dis. 2016;67(4):585–92.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 127.Davies HE, Mishra EK, Kahan BC, Wrightson JM, Stanton AE, Guhan A, et al. Effect of an indwelling pleural catheter vs chest tube and talc pleurodesis for relieving dyspnea in patients with malignant pleural effusion: the TIME2 randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2012;307(22):2383–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 132.Higginson IJ, Bausewein C, Reilly CC, Gao W, Gysels M, Dzingina M, et al. An integrated palliative and respiratory care service for patients with advanced disease and refractory breathlessness: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet Respir Med. 2014;2(12):979–87.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 133.Higginson IJ, Costantini M, Silber E, Burman R, Edmonds P. Evaluation of a new model of short-term palliative care for people severely affected with multiple sclerosis: a randomised fast-track trial to test timing of referral and how long the effect is maintained. Postgrad Med J. 2011;87(1033):769–75.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 134.Hopp FP, Zalenski RJ, Waselewsky D, Burn J, Camp J, Welch RD, et al. Results of a hospital-based palliative care intervention for patients with an acute exacerbation of chronic heart failure. J Card Fail. 2016;15.Google Scholar
- 138.Jacobs C, Kuchuk I, Bouganim N, Smith S, Mazzarello S, Vandermeer L, et al. A randomized, double-blind, phase II, exploratory trial evaluating the palliative benefit of either continuing pamidronate or switching to zoledronic acid in patients with high-risk bone metastases from breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2016;155(1):77–84.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 139.Jatoi A, Nieva JJ, Qin R, Loprinzi CL, Wos EJ, Novotny PJ, et al. A pilot study of long-acting octreotide for symptomatic malignant ascites. Oncology (Switzerland). 2012;82(6):315–20.Google Scholar
- 140.Kwekkeboom KL, Abbott-Anderson K, Cherwin C, Roiland R, Serlin RC, Ward SE. Pilot randomized controlled trial of a patient-controlled cognitive-behavioral intervention for the pain, fatigue, and sleep disturbance symptom cluster in cancer. J Pain Symptom Manag. 2012;44(6):810–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 142.Lund Rasmussen C, Klee Olsen M, Thit Johnsen A, Aagaard Petersen M, Lindholm H, Andersen L, et al. Effects of melatonin on physical fatigue and other symptoms in patients with advanced cancer receiving palliative care: a double-blind placebo-controlled crossover trial. Cancer. 2015;121(20):3727–36.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 143.Maddocks M, Halliday V, Chauhan A, Taylor V, Nelson A, Sampson C, et al. Neuromuscular electrical stimulation of the quadriceps in patients with non-small cell lung cancer receiving palliative chemotherapy: A randomized phase II study. PLoS ONE. 2013;8(12, e86059).PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 147.Nilsson S, Strang P, Aksnes AK, Franzn L, Olivier P, Pecking A, et al. A randomized, dose-response, multicenter phase II study of radium-223 chloride for the palliation of painful bone metastases in patients with castration-resistant prostate cancer. Eur J Cancer. 2012;48(5):678–86.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 155.Warth M, Kesler J, Hillecke TK, Bardenheuer HJ. Music therapy in palliative care: results of a randomized, controlled trial on psychophysiological indicators of relaxation and well-being. Oncology Research and Treatment. 2016;39:128–9.Google Scholar
Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.