For patients aged over 80 years, with a poor performance status or high co-morbidity scores, the survival advantage of renal replacement therapy over conservative management was lost at all levels of disease severity. Those accessing a conservative management pathway had greater access to palliative care services and were less likely to be admitted to or die in hospital.

Background and objective To ensure that decisions to start and stop dialysis in ESRD are shared, the factors that affect patients and health care professionals in making such decisions must be understood. This systematic review sought to explore how and why different factors mediate the choices about dialysis treatment.Design, setting, participants, & measurements MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and PsychINFO were searched for qualitative studies of factors that affect patients' or health care professionals' decisions to commence or withdraw from dialysis. A thematic synthesis was conducted.Results Of 494 articles screened, 12 studies (conducted from 1985 to 2014) were included. These involved 206 patients (most receiving hemodialysis) and 64 health care professionals (age ranges: patients, 26-93 years; professionals, 26-61 years). For commencing dialysis, patients based their choice on "gut instinct," as well as deliberating over the effect of treatment on quality of life and survival. How individuals coped with decisionmaking was influential: Some tried to take control of the problem of progressive renal failure, whereas others focused on controlling their emotions. Health care professionals weighed biomedical factors and were led by an instinct to prolong life. Both patients and health care professionals described feeling powerless. With regard to dialysis withdrawal, only after prolonged periods on dialysis were the realities of life on dialysis fully appreciated and past choices questioned. By this stage, however, patients were physically dependent on treatment. As was seen with commencing dialysis, individuals coped with treatment withdrawal in a problem-or emotioncontrolling way. Families struggled to differentiate between choosing versus allowing death. Health care teams avoided and queried discussions regarding dialysis withdrawal. Patients, however, missed the dialogue they experienced during predialysis education.Conclusions Decision-making in ESRD is complex and dynamic and evolves over time and toward death. The factors at work are multifaceted and operate differently for patients and health professionals. More training and research on open communication and shared decision-making are needed.

The efficacy of low-dose systemic opioids for chronic breathlessness was questioned by the recent Cochrane review by Barnes We examined the reasons for this conflicting finding and re-evaluated the efficacy of systemic opioids. Compared with previous meta-analyses, Barnes reported a smaller effect and lower precision, but did not account for matched data of crossover trials (11/12 included trials) and added a risk-of-bias criterion (sample size). When re-analysed to account for crossover data, opioids decreased breathlessness (standardised mean differences -0.32; -0.18 to -0.47; I=44.8%) representing a clinically meaningful reduction of 0.8 points (0-10 numerical rating scale), consistent across meta-analyses.

ObjectivesTo assess the risk posed by missing data (MD) to the power and validity of trials evaluating palliative interventions.Study Design and SettingA systematic review of MD in published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of palliative interventions in participants with life-limiting illnesses was conducted, and random-effects meta-analyses and metaregression were performed. CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and EMBASE (2009–2014) were searched with no language restrictions.ResultsOne hundred and eight RCTs representing 15,560 patients were included. The weighted estimate for MD at the primary endpoint was 23.1% (95% confidence interval [CI] 19.3, 27.4). Larger MD proportions were associated with increasing numbers of questions/tests requested (odds ratio [OR], 1.19; 95% CI 1.05, 1.35) and with longer study duration (OR, 1.09; 95% CI 1.02, 1.17). Meta-analysis found evidence of differential rates of MD between trial arms, which varied in direction (OR, 1.04; 95% CI 0.90, 1.20; I2 35.9, P = 0.001). Despite randomization, MD in the intervention arms (vs. control) were more likely to be attributed to disease progression unrelated to the intervention (OR, 1.31; 95% CI 1.02, 1.69). This was not the case for MD due to death (OR, 0.92; 95% CI 0.78, 1.08).ConclusionThe overall proportion and differential rates and reasons for MD reduce the power and potentially introduce bias to palliative care trials.