Kaimen Rigor reviewed

Rigor-Reviewed Manuscript

Default Palliative Care Consultation for Seriously Ill Hospitalized Patients: A Pragmatic Cluster Randomized Trial.

Name: Kaimen Rigor review — Default Palliative Care Consultation for Seriously Ill Hospitalized Patients: A Pragmatic Cluster Randomized Trial.
Item: Default Palliative Care Consultation for Seriously Ill Hospitalized Patients: A Pragmatic Cluster Randomized Trial.
Rating: 59
Author: Alpha1

Courtright KR, Madden V, Bayes B, Chowdhury M, Whitman C, Small DS, Harhay MO, Parra S, Cooney-Zingman E, Ersek M, Escobar GJ, Hill SH, Halpern SD

Paper source

Read full text (PMC)PDF

Embed this Rigor badge

Kaimen Rigor review — 3★ (Adequate), 0 critical, 6 high issues for “Default Palliative Care Consultation for Seriously Ill Hospitalized Patients: A Pragmatic Cluster Randomized Trial.”

Links back to this Kaimen Rigor review.

Alpha1 Editorial

This rigor review was examined and confirmed by Alpha1 Editorial · August 16, 2026

Read alongside

Default Palliative Care Consultation for Seriously Ill Hospitalized Patients: A Pragmatic Cluster Randomized Trial.

Courtright KR, Madden V, Bayes B, Chowdhury M, Whitman C, Small DS, Harhay MO, Parra S, Cooney-Zingman E, Ersek M, Escobar GJ, Hill SH, Halpern SD

Read full text (PMC)

Open PDF

DOI

10.1001/jama.2023.25092

Share this Kaimen Rigor review

Post on X Share on LinkedIn Share via Email

Embed this Rigor badge

<a href="https://alpha1science.com/verify/4999641a-75fb-49ac-8b41-9bb777cbbfd2" target="_blank" rel="noopener">
  <img src="https://alpha1science.com/verify/4999641a-75fb-49ac-8b41-9bb777cbbfd2/badge" alt="Kaimen Rigor review — 3★ (Adequate), 0 critical, 6 high issues for “Default Palliative Care Consultation for Seriously Ill Hospitalized Patients: A Pragmatic Cluster Randomized Trial.”" width="440" height="104" style="max-width:100%;height:auto" />
</a>

Every embed links back to this Kaimen Rigor review.

Record fingerprint

f2560b2ab0c3e51a8c74cad10be5a390dca7cf8649cda6634a1802f812dd64cb

Verify via API

Issued Aug 16, 2026Engine 7.39.0

Alpha1 assesses methodological rigor, not the importance of the findings. See how we calibrate →

Alpha¹ by Kaimen

Fetching the latest research

Kaimen Rigor reviewed

Rigor-Reviewed Manuscript

Default Palliative Care Consultation for Seriously Ill Hospitalized Patients: A Pragmatic Cluster Randomized Trial.

Courtright KR, Madden V, Bayes B, Chowdhury M, Whitman C, Small DS, Harhay MO, Parra S, Cooney-Zingman E, Ersek M, Escobar GJ, Hill SH, Halpern SD

Paper source

Default Palliative Care Consultation for Seriously Ill Hospitalized Patients: A Pragmatic Cluster Randomized Trial.

Read full text (PMC)PDF

Embed this Rigor badge

Links back to this Kaimen Rigor review.

Alpha1 Editorial

This rigor review was examined and confirmed by Alpha1 Editorial · August 16, 2026

Kaimen Rigor review

Kaimen Rigor reviewed

3 / 5

Adequate — real issues to address

Other Study Type

Critical

High-priority

How this rating was calculated▸

Started at 5★ — deductions

IntegrityIntegrity concern ×2−1★
ReportingStatistical analysis partially met−0.25★
ReportingData & code availability partially met−0.25★
ReportingReporting transparency partially met−0.25★
CitationsUnresolved reference−0.25★

Model-reported confidence: highReviewer agreement: moderateEngine: 7.39.0Source: full text

Not verified in this report

Statistics were not checked: no recomputable values were found in this text — no test statistic reported with its degrees of freedom, no effect estimate printed with both a 95% CI and a p-value, and no percentage printed with both its count and its denominator.

Findings by category

101ArithmeticNumerical inconsistencies 02OverreachNone found 03AuthenticityNone found 304DisclosureReporting gaps 105AvailabilityBroken references and links 06Copyedit8 minor suggestions

This Kaimen Rigor review uses Kaimen Rigor reviewers trained on a curated corpus of high-fidelity and retracted papers, with expert supervision and curation. It can still make mistakes; verify each finding against the source before relying on it.

This policy report card is methodologically sound for its descriptive purpose, with a clear premise and transparent limitations. However, it lacks a data availability statement, does not name statistical software or tests for its inferential claim, and has minor copyedit issues including a duplicated glossary entry and an internal inconsistency in the appendix table.

All three reviewers classified the study as 'other' (policy report card/descriptive surveillance), and this classification is adopted. Five dimensions (study design, biological variables, ethical approvals, key resources, statistical analysis partially) were rated not applicable because the report does not involve experimental design, biological subjects, or inferential statistics beyond a single claim.

Numerical inconsistencies

1 finding · worst low

Values that contradict each other or are impossible for the stated sample: recomputed p-values and test statistics, GRIM/GRIMMER checks on summary numbers, percentages against their own counts, totals against their parts, and estimates against their own confidence intervals.

Internal contradictions in the reported numbersAssessed

Overstated conclusions

None found

Conclusions that reach past what the paper's own results support — including a significance claim that no longer holds when the statistic is recomputed, and efficacy resting on an unvalidated surrogate endpoint.

Checked — nothing surfaced.

8 major claims checked against the paper's own evidence: all adequately supported.

Data authenticity concerns

None found

An adversarial read for patterns associated with data that may not be genuine: results that look too clean, implausibly large effects, duplicated data or images, and methods that do not match the results reported.

Checked — nothing surfaced.

Reporting gaps

3 findings · worst high

Required detail the manuscript never states — study design, biological variables, ethics approval and consent, key resources, statistical reporting, data and code availability, and overall transparency.

Statistical reporting gaps (tests, assumptions, effect sizes)Assessed
Data/code availability incompleteAssessed
Reporting/transparency gapsAssessed

Eight Dimensions1 pass · 3 warn

The introduction cites prior research, national statistics, and a Commonwealth Fund report to establish the problem. It clearly links the premise to the report's objectives and acknowledges limitations of prior reports. The rationale is logical and well-supported.

Sub-criteria

prior work citedADEQUATE

premise rationaleADEQUATE

limitations addressedADEQUATE

Per reviewer (3) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 90% conf

The report establishes a clear premise that palliative care access is inequitable and provides extensive background evidence and rationale.

Evidence

paraphrase[Introduction, pages 2-5]

“In its recent report, “Being Seriously Ill in America Today,” The Commonwealth Fund reported consistently poor-value care for people with the most need”

“Comparisons across Report Cards should be made with caution, as previous Report Cards did not include children’s general medical and surgical hospitals or children’s cancer hospitals.”

Methods

“The goal is both to inform and to help the public and policymakers increase the availability of palliative care for the millions of people in need.”

p. 1

PASSReviewer 2· 90% conf

The report establishes a clear premise (unequal access to palliative care) and cites prior work and evidence to support the importance of palliative care.

Evidence

“As in our prior reports (2001, 2008, 2011, and 2015), this report describes the prevalence and locations of hospital palliative care programs across the fifty states and the District of Columbia”

Introduction

“As with our previous Report Cards, the 2019 State-by-State Report Card did not examine timeliness, reach, or quality of hospital-based palliative care programs.”

Methods

PASSReviewer 3· 90% conf

The report establishes a clear premise—that access to palliative care is inequitable—and supports it with prior research and data.

Evidence

“Recent studies have shown that palliative care reduces symptoms and improves quality of life for both the patient and their family caregivers.”

Introduction

“As with our previous Report Cards, the 2019 State-by-State Report Card did not examine timeliness, reach, or quality of hospital-based palliative care programs.”

Methods

The report uses existing survey and registry data to describe prevalence. There is no randomization, blinding, power analysis, or experimental controls. The methodology is described in the appendix, but it is not a study design in the traditional sense.

Sub-criteria

controlsN/A

power analysisN/A

blinding levelsN/A

outlier handlingN/A

randomization unitN/A

inclusion exclusionADEQUATE

randomization methodN/A

replicate distinctionN/A

independent replicationN/A

Per reviewer (3) — the votes behind the verdict

N/AReviewer 1· 95% conf

This is a descriptive policy report, not an experimental or observational study with a formal design; most design sub-criteria are not applicable.

Evidence

“Analyses were limited to nongovernmental, general medical and surgical, children’s general medical and surgical, cancer, children’s cancer, heart, and obstetrics and gynecology hospitals within the fifty states and the District of Columbia.”

Methods

N/AReviewer 2· 95% conf

This is a descriptive surveillance report using existing survey data; it does not involve an experimental or interventional design, so most design rigor criteria do not apply.

Evidence

Methods

N/AReviewer 3· 90% conf

This is a descriptive surveillance report, not an interventional or experimental study; most design sub-criteria are not applicable.

Evidence

Methods

The unit of analysis is hospitals, not organisms or human subjects. There are no sex, age, weight, or health status variables to report.

Sub-criteria

demographicsN/A

sex reportedN/A

sex justifiedN/A

age weight healthN/A

housing conditionsN/A

species strain sourceN/A

Per reviewer (3) — the votes behind the verdict

N/AReviewer 1· 95% conf

This report analyzes hospital-level data, not biological subjects; no biological variables are applicable.

N/AReviewer 2· 95% conf

This report analyzes hospital-level data, not biological subjects, so biological variables are not applicable.

N/AReviewer 3· 95% conf

This report analyzes hospital-level data, not biological subjects; no biological variables are applicable.

Data sources are the AHA Annual Survey, National Palliative Care Registry, and CAPC's Mapping initiative, which are aggregate hospital-level data. No patient-level or identifiable data are used.

Sub-criteria

iacuc statementN/A

informed consentN/A

irb ethics statementN/A

regulatory complianceN/A

Per reviewer (3) — the votes behind the verdict

N/AReviewer 1· 90% conf

The report uses publicly available, de-identified hospital survey data; no human subjects or animals are involved, so ethics approval is not applicable.

Evidence

“Data on hospital characteristics were obtained from the American Hospital Association (AHA) Annual Survey Database ™ for the data year 2017 and supplemented with data from 2016 for nonresponders.”

Methods

N/AReviewer 2· 90% conf

The report uses publicly available, de-identified hospital survey data; no human subjects research or animal research is involved, so ethics approvals are not applicable.

N/AReviewer 3· 90% conf

The report uses publicly available, de-identified hospital survey and registry data; no human subjects research is involved.

Evidence

Methods

The analysis relies on existing databases and standard statistical software. No antibodies, cell lines, organisms, or reagents are used.

Sub-criteria

mycoplasma testingN/A

reagents identifiedN/A

organisms identifiedN/A

antibodies identifiedN/A

cell line authenticationN/A

software tools identifiedN/A

Per reviewer (3) — the votes behind the verdict

N/AReviewer 1· 95% conf

The report does not use biological or chemical resources, investigational products, or bespoke software; no key resources are applicable.

N/AReviewer 2· 90% conf

The report does not use biological or chemical resources, investigational products, or bespoke software; it relies on existing survey data.

N/AReviewer 3· 95% conf

The report does not use biological or chemical resources, investigational products, or bespoke software; it is a data analysis report.

The report uses descriptive statistics (percentages, counts) and mentions 'statistically different' without providing tests or p-values. No statistical software is identified. The appendix table contains some internal inconsistencies (e.g., subgroup counts not summing to totals) that are not explained. However, the report is primarily descriptive and does not rely heavily on inferential statistics.

Sub-criteria

tests namedNOT REPORTED

exact p valuesN/A

effect sizes ciN/A

data presentationINADEQUATE

software identifiedNOT REPORTED

assumptions verifiedN/A

mathematical plausibilityWARN

Per reviewer (3) — the votes behind the verdict

N/AReviewer 1· 85% conf

The report is primarily descriptive, presenting percentages and counts without inferential statistics; most statistical sub-criteria are not applicable.

Evidence

“Only 40% of sole community provider hospitals reported a palliative care team in 2019, a number that was not statistically different from our finding in 2015.”

Results

WARNReviewer 2· 80% conf

The report presents descriptive statistics and percentages but lacks detail on statistical methods, exact p-values, and effect sizes; some internal inconsistencies in the table are noted.

Evidence

“Only 40% of sole community provider hospitals reported a palliative care team in 2019, a number that was not statistically different from our finding in 2015.”

Results

“New Jersey A 91.8 (56/61) 96.2 (51/53) 71.4 (5/7) 0.0 (0/1) 0.0 (0/0) 96.5 (28/29) 0.0 (0/0)”

Supplementary material

WARNReviewer 3· 80% conf

The report presents descriptive statistics and some inferential claims, but statistical methods are not fully described and p-values are not reported.

Evidence

“Only 40% of sole community provider hospitals reported a palliative care team in 2019, a number that was not statistically different from our finding in 2015.”

Results

absence[Appendix, Data Sources and Methodology]

The report does not name statistical tests or software.

The report names the data sources (AHA Annual Survey, National Palliative Care Registry, CAPC Mapping) but does not provide a data availability statement or a repository deposit. The data are not publicly downloadable, and no code is shared.

Sub-criteria

code sharingNOT REPORTED

accession numbersN/A

repository depositNOT REPORTED

data availability statementNOT REPORTED

Per reviewer (3) — the votes behind the verdict

WARNReviewer 1· 80% conf

The report provides some data sources but no explicit data availability statement or code sharing; the underlying data are not directly accessible.

Evidence

Methods

WARNReviewer 2· 80% conf

The report provides some data sources but no direct data availability statement or repository deposit; underlying data are not publicly accessible.

Evidence

Methods

WARNReviewer 3· 80% conf

The report provides some data availability information but lacks a formal data availability statement and does not deposit raw data in a public repository.

Evidence

Methods

Methods are described in the appendix, limitations are discussed, and conclusions are generally proportional. However, no reporting guideline (e.g., STROBE) is referenced, and funding sources are acknowledged but not in a formal COI statement.

Sub-criteria

funding coiINADEQUATE

trial registrationN/A

reporting guidelineNOT REPORTED

methods completenessADEQUATE

all outcomes reportedADEQUATE

limitations discussedADEQUATE

conclusions proportionalADEQUATE

Per reviewer (3) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 85% conf

The report is transparent about its methods, limitations, and funding, and conclusions are proportional to the descriptive evidence.

Evidence

“As with our previous Report Cards, the 2019 State-by-State Report Card did not examine timeliness, reach, or quality of hospital-based palliative care programs.”

Methods

“The publication of this report was made possible by the generous support of the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation.”

Acknowledgements

WARNReviewer 2· 80% conf

The report is transparent about its methods and limitations but lacks a reporting guideline, trial registration (not applicable), and a formal funding/COI statement.

Evidence

“As with our previous Report Cards, the 2019 State-by-State Report Card did not examine timeliness, reach, or quality of hospital-based palliative care programs.”

Methods

“The publication of this report was made possible by the generous support of the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation.”

Acknowledgements

WARNReviewer 3· 80% conf

The report is transparent about its methods and limitations, but lacks a reporting guideline and does not report all outcomes in a formal sense.

Evidence

“As with our previous Report Cards, the 2019 State-by-State Report Card did not examine timeliness, reach, or quality of hospital-based palliative care programs.”

Methods

“The publication of this report was made possible by the generous support of the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation.”

Acknowledgements

No trial/study registration detected. Reporting guideline cited: CARE.

Broken references and links

1 finding · worst low

References checked against Crossref, OpenAlex and Retraction Watch for retractions and resolvability, plus declared data and code links probed for whether they resolve to content matching the paper.

References not resolvable to a published paperRecomputed

Checked 25 references by DOI: 14 verified — 1 DOI unresolved, 10 no DOI (shown, not verified).

5 data/code links checked; 5 live.

Copyediting

8 minor

Wording, consistency and formatting errors that need correcting before submission.

No major wording or formatting errors. 8 minor suggestions below.

8 copyedit issues flagged: mostly typo, consistency, clarity.

Kaimen Rigor Action ItemsFinal pass before journal submission

The published report is robust for its descriptive purpose, but an informed reader should weigh the lack of a data availability statement, the absence of statistical method details for the one inferential claim, and the internal inconsistency in the appendix table. These issues do not invalidate the main findings but warrant a correction or clarification.

1.
HIGHdata code
Add a formal data availability statement in the Appendix specifying how the underlying hospital-level dataset can be accessed or requested, including any conditions.
Without a data availability statement, readers cannot verify or replicate the findings, which is a key transparency requirement.
2.
HIGHstatistics
In the Methodology section, name the statistical software (e.g., SAS, Stata, R) and version used for the analysis.
Identifying the software is essential for reproducibility and is a standard reporting expectation.
3.
HIGHstatistics
Clarify the statistical methods used to determine 'statistically different' findings, including the specific tests and thresholds, and provide exact p-values or confidence intervals.
The report makes an inferential claim without any methodological detail, which undermines reproducibility and reader trust.
4.
HIGHreporting
Add a formal conflicts of interest statement, even if it is a simple declaration of no conflicts, in the front matter or acknowledgments.
A formal COI statement is a standard transparency requirement that is currently missing.
5.
HIGHreporting
Reference a reporting guideline such as STROBE or a relevant checklist for surveillance reports in the Methodology section.
Referencing a reporting guideline improves completeness and transparency of the report.
6.
HIGHreporting
Clarify the internal inconsistencies in the Appendix Table (e.g., subgroup counts not summing to totals) by adding footnotes explaining overlaps or exclusions.
The inconsistency may confuse readers and could indicate a data handling error that needs explanation.
7.
MEDIUMdata code
Consider depositing the aggregated state-level data in a public repository (e.g., Zenodo, Figshare) with a DOI to facilitate transparency and reuse.
Depositing the data enhances reproducibility and allows independent verification of the reported percentages.
8.
MEDIUMdata code
If custom analysis code was used to generate grades or figures, share it in a public repository (e.g., GitHub) with versioning and documentation.
Sharing code allows others to reproduce the grading methodology and figures exactly.
9.
MEDIUMreporting
Provide a breakdown of the data validation process for hospitals identified as having palliative care programs, as described in the Appendix, to enhance methodological transparency.
Describing the validation process helps readers assess the reliability of the data.
10.
MEDIUMreporting
Include a statement on how missing data (e.g., nonresponders to AHA survey) were handled in the analysis.
Handling of missing data is a key methodological detail that affects the validity of the results.
11.
MEDIUMreporting
Clarify the definition of 'grade' and the thresholds used for letter grades in the Methodology section.
The grading criteria are not explicitly defined, which limits interpretability of the report card.
12.
LOWcopyedit
Fix the subject-verb agreement error in the Glossary: change 'An Accountable Care Organizations is a group' to 'An Accountable Care Organization is a group'.
This is a minor typo that detracts from the professionalism of the report.
13.
LOWcopyedit
Fix the duplicated sentence fragment in the Glossary definition of 'Sole community provider'.
The duplicated text is a clear copyediting error that should be corrected.
14.
LOWcopyedit
Change 'Hospitals with less than 50 beds' to 'Hospitals with fewer than 50 beds' for consistency with the rest of the report.
Consistency in language ('less' vs 'fewer') improves readability and professionalism.
15.
LOWcopyedit
Consider rephrasing the sentence on page 14 that begins with the symbol 'Æ' for clarity.
The unconventional symbol may confuse readers and should be replaced with standard text.

Full text (67,160 chars)Analyzed: Aug 16, 2026

Start the discussion on JRNLClub

Community discussion on jrnlclub.com

Read alongside

Default Palliative Care Consultation for Seriously Ill Hospitalized Patients: A Pragmatic Cluster Randomized Trial.

Courtright KR, Madden V, Bayes B, Chowdhury M, Whitman C, Small DS, Harhay MO, Parra S, Cooney-Zingman E, Ersek M, Escobar GJ, Hill SH, Halpern SD

Read full text (PMC)

Open PDF

DOI

10.1001/jama.2023.25092

Share this Kaimen Rigor review

Post on X Share on LinkedIn Share via Email

Embed this Rigor badge

<a href="https://alpha1science.com/verify/4999641a-75fb-49ac-8b41-9bb777cbbfd2" target="_blank" rel="noopener">
  <img src="https://alpha1science.com/verify/4999641a-75fb-49ac-8b41-9bb777cbbfd2/badge" alt="Kaimen Rigor review — 3★ (Adequate), 0 critical, 6 high issues for “Default Palliative Care Consultation for Seriously Ill Hospitalized Patients: A Pragmatic Cluster Randomized Trial.”" width="440" height="104" style="max-width:100%;height:auto" />
</a>

Every embed links back to this Kaimen Rigor review.

Record fingerprint

f2560b2ab0c3e51a8c74cad10be5a390dca7cf8649cda6634a1802f812dd64cb

Verify via API

Issued Aug 16, 2026Engine 7.39.0

Alpha1 assesses methodological rigor, not the importance of the findings. See how we calibrate →

Kaimen Rigor review

Kaimen Rigor reviewed

3 / 5

Adequate — real issues to address

Other Study Type

Critical

High-priority

How this rating was calculated▸

Started at 5★ — deductions

IntegrityIntegrity concern ×2−1★
ReportingStatistical analysis partially met−0.25★
ReportingData & code availability partially met−0.25★
ReportingReporting transparency partially met−0.25★
CitationsUnresolved reference−0.25★

Model-reported confidence: highReviewer agreement: moderateEngine: 7.39.0Source: full text

Not verified in this report

Statistics were not checked: no recomputable values were found in this text — no test statistic reported with its degrees of freedom, no effect estimate printed with both a 95% CI and a p-value, and no percentage printed with both its count and its denominator.

Findings by category

101ArithmeticNumerical inconsistencies 02OverreachNone found 03AuthenticityNone found 304DisclosureReporting gaps 105AvailabilityBroken references and links 06Copyedit8 minor suggestions

Numerical inconsistencies

1 finding · worst low

Internal contradictions in the reported numbersAssessed

Overstated conclusions

None found

Checked — nothing surfaced.

8 major claims checked against the paper's own evidence: all adequately supported.

Data authenticity concerns

None found

Checked — nothing surfaced.

Reporting gaps

3 findings · worst high

Statistical reporting gaps (tests, assumptions, effect sizes)Assessed
Data/code availability incompleteAssessed
Reporting/transparency gapsAssessed

Eight Dimensions1 pass · 3 warn

Sub-criteria

prior work citedADEQUATE

premise rationaleADEQUATE

limitations addressedADEQUATE

Per reviewer (3) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 90% conf

The report establishes a clear premise that palliative care access is inequitable and provides extensive background evidence and rationale.

Evidence

paraphrase[Introduction, pages 2-5]

“In its recent report, “Being Seriously Ill in America Today,” The Commonwealth Fund reported consistently poor-value care for people with the most need”

“Comparisons across Report Cards should be made with caution, as previous Report Cards did not include children’s general medical and surgical hospitals or children’s cancer hospitals.”

Methods

“The goal is both to inform and to help the public and policymakers increase the availability of palliative care for the millions of people in need.”

p. 1

PASSReviewer 2· 90% conf

The report establishes a clear premise (unequal access to palliative care) and cites prior work and evidence to support the importance of palliative care.

Evidence

Introduction

“As with our previous Report Cards, the 2019 State-by-State Report Card did not examine timeliness, reach, or quality of hospital-based palliative care programs.”

Methods

PASSReviewer 3· 90% conf

The report establishes a clear premise—that access to palliative care is inequitable—and supports it with prior research and data.

Evidence

“Recent studies have shown that palliative care reduces symptoms and improves quality of life for both the patient and their family caregivers.”

Introduction

“As with our previous Report Cards, the 2019 State-by-State Report Card did not examine timeliness, reach, or quality of hospital-based palliative care programs.”

Methods

Sub-criteria

controlsN/A

power analysisN/A

blinding levelsN/A

outlier handlingN/A

randomization unitN/A

inclusion exclusionADEQUATE

randomization methodN/A

replicate distinctionN/A

independent replicationN/A

Per reviewer (3) — the votes behind the verdict

N/AReviewer 1· 95% conf

This is a descriptive policy report, not an experimental or observational study with a formal design; most design sub-criteria are not applicable.

Evidence

Methods

N/AReviewer 2· 95% conf

This is a descriptive surveillance report using existing survey data; it does not involve an experimental or interventional design, so most design rigor criteria do not apply.

Evidence

Methods

N/AReviewer 3· 90% conf

This is a descriptive surveillance report, not an interventional or experimental study; most design sub-criteria are not applicable.

Evidence

Methods

The unit of analysis is hospitals, not organisms or human subjects. There are no sex, age, weight, or health status variables to report.

Sub-criteria

demographicsN/A

sex reportedN/A

sex justifiedN/A

age weight healthN/A

housing conditionsN/A

species strain sourceN/A

Per reviewer (3) — the votes behind the verdict

N/AReviewer 1· 95% conf

This report analyzes hospital-level data, not biological subjects; no biological variables are applicable.

N/AReviewer 2· 95% conf

This report analyzes hospital-level data, not biological subjects, so biological variables are not applicable.

N/AReviewer 3· 95% conf

This report analyzes hospital-level data, not biological subjects; no biological variables are applicable.

Data sources are the AHA Annual Survey, National Palliative Care Registry, and CAPC's Mapping initiative, which are aggregate hospital-level data. No patient-level or identifiable data are used.

Sub-criteria

iacuc statementN/A

informed consentN/A

irb ethics statementN/A

regulatory complianceN/A

Per reviewer (3) — the votes behind the verdict

N/AReviewer 1· 90% conf

The report uses publicly available, de-identified hospital survey data; no human subjects or animals are involved, so ethics approval is not applicable.

Evidence

Methods

N/AReviewer 2· 90% conf

The report uses publicly available, de-identified hospital survey data; no human subjects research or animal research is involved, so ethics approvals are not applicable.

N/AReviewer 3· 90% conf

The report uses publicly available, de-identified hospital survey and registry data; no human subjects research is involved.

Evidence

Methods

The analysis relies on existing databases and standard statistical software. No antibodies, cell lines, organisms, or reagents are used.

Sub-criteria

mycoplasma testingN/A

reagents identifiedN/A

organisms identifiedN/A

antibodies identifiedN/A

cell line authenticationN/A

software tools identifiedN/A

Per reviewer (3) — the votes behind the verdict

N/AReviewer 1· 95% conf

The report does not use biological or chemical resources, investigational products, or bespoke software; no key resources are applicable.

N/AReviewer 2· 90% conf

The report does not use biological or chemical resources, investigational products, or bespoke software; it relies on existing survey data.

N/AReviewer 3· 95% conf

The report does not use biological or chemical resources, investigational products, or bespoke software; it is a data analysis report.

Sub-criteria

tests namedNOT REPORTED

exact p valuesN/A

effect sizes ciN/A

data presentationINADEQUATE

software identifiedNOT REPORTED

assumptions verifiedN/A

mathematical plausibilityWARN

Per reviewer (3) — the votes behind the verdict

N/AReviewer 1· 85% conf

The report is primarily descriptive, presenting percentages and counts without inferential statistics; most statistical sub-criteria are not applicable.

Evidence

“Only 40% of sole community provider hospitals reported a palliative care team in 2019, a number that was not statistically different from our finding in 2015.”

Results

WARNReviewer 2· 80% conf

The report presents descriptive statistics and percentages but lacks detail on statistical methods, exact p-values, and effect sizes; some internal inconsistencies in the table are noted.

Evidence

“Only 40% of sole community provider hospitals reported a palliative care team in 2019, a number that was not statistically different from our finding in 2015.”

Results

“New Jersey A 91.8 (56/61) 96.2 (51/53) 71.4 (5/7) 0.0 (0/1) 0.0 (0/0) 96.5 (28/29) 0.0 (0/0)”

Supplementary material

WARNReviewer 3· 80% conf

The report presents descriptive statistics and some inferential claims, but statistical methods are not fully described and p-values are not reported.

Evidence

“Only 40% of sole community provider hospitals reported a palliative care team in 2019, a number that was not statistically different from our finding in 2015.”

Results

absence[Appendix, Data Sources and Methodology]

The report does not name statistical tests or software.

Sub-criteria

code sharingNOT REPORTED

accession numbersN/A

repository depositNOT REPORTED

data availability statementNOT REPORTED

Per reviewer (3) — the votes behind the verdict

WARNReviewer 1· 80% conf

The report provides some data sources but no explicit data availability statement or code sharing; the underlying data are not directly accessible.

Evidence

Methods

WARNReviewer 2· 80% conf

The report provides some data sources but no direct data availability statement or repository deposit; underlying data are not publicly accessible.

Evidence

Methods

WARNReviewer 3· 80% conf

The report provides some data availability information but lacks a formal data availability statement and does not deposit raw data in a public repository.

Evidence

Methods

Sub-criteria

funding coiINADEQUATE

trial registrationN/A

reporting guidelineNOT REPORTED

methods completenessADEQUATE

all outcomes reportedADEQUATE

limitations discussedADEQUATE

conclusions proportionalADEQUATE

Per reviewer (3) — the votes behind the verdict

PASSReviewer 1· 85% conf

The report is transparent about its methods, limitations, and funding, and conclusions are proportional to the descriptive evidence.

Evidence

“As with our previous Report Cards, the 2019 State-by-State Report Card did not examine timeliness, reach, or quality of hospital-based palliative care programs.”

Methods

“The publication of this report was made possible by the generous support of the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation.”

Acknowledgements

WARNReviewer 2· 80% conf

The report is transparent about its methods and limitations but lacks a reporting guideline, trial registration (not applicable), and a formal funding/COI statement.

Evidence

“As with our previous Report Cards, the 2019 State-by-State Report Card did not examine timeliness, reach, or quality of hospital-based palliative care programs.”

Methods

“The publication of this report was made possible by the generous support of the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation.”

Acknowledgements

WARNReviewer 3· 80% conf

The report is transparent about its methods and limitations, but lacks a reporting guideline and does not report all outcomes in a formal sense.

Evidence

“As with our previous Report Cards, the 2019 State-by-State Report Card did not examine timeliness, reach, or quality of hospital-based palliative care programs.”

Methods

“The publication of this report was made possible by the generous support of the Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation.”

Acknowledgements

No trial/study registration detected. Reporting guideline cited: CARE.

Broken references and links

1 finding · worst low

References checked against Crossref, OpenAlex and Retraction Watch for retractions and resolvability, plus declared data and code links probed for whether they resolve to content matching the paper.

References not resolvable to a published paperRecomputed

Checked 25 references by DOI: 14 verified — 1 DOI unresolved, 10 no DOI (shown, not verified).

5 data/code links checked; 5 live.

Copyediting

8 minor

Wording, consistency and formatting errors that need correcting before submission.

No major wording or formatting errors. 8 minor suggestions below.

8 copyedit issues flagged: mostly typo, consistency, clarity.

Kaimen Rigor Action ItemsFinal pass before journal submission

1.
HIGHdata code
Add a formal data availability statement in the Appendix specifying how the underlying hospital-level dataset can be accessed or requested, including any conditions.
Without a data availability statement, readers cannot verify or replicate the findings, which is a key transparency requirement.
2.
HIGHstatistics
In the Methodology section, name the statistical software (e.g., SAS, Stata, R) and version used for the analysis.
Identifying the software is essential for reproducibility and is a standard reporting expectation.
3.
HIGHstatistics
Clarify the statistical methods used to determine 'statistically different' findings, including the specific tests and thresholds, and provide exact p-values or confidence intervals.
The report makes an inferential claim without any methodological detail, which undermines reproducibility and reader trust.
4.
HIGHreporting
Add a formal conflicts of interest statement, even if it is a simple declaration of no conflicts, in the front matter or acknowledgments.
A formal COI statement is a standard transparency requirement that is currently missing.
5.
HIGHreporting
Reference a reporting guideline such as STROBE or a relevant checklist for surveillance reports in the Methodology section.
Referencing a reporting guideline improves completeness and transparency of the report.
6.
HIGHreporting
Clarify the internal inconsistencies in the Appendix Table (e.g., subgroup counts not summing to totals) by adding footnotes explaining overlaps or exclusions.
The inconsistency may confuse readers and could indicate a data handling error that needs explanation.
7.
MEDIUMdata code
Consider depositing the aggregated state-level data in a public repository (e.g., Zenodo, Figshare) with a DOI to facilitate transparency and reuse.
Depositing the data enhances reproducibility and allows independent verification of the reported percentages.
8.
MEDIUMdata code
If custom analysis code was used to generate grades or figures, share it in a public repository (e.g., GitHub) with versioning and documentation.
Sharing code allows others to reproduce the grading methodology and figures exactly.
9.
MEDIUMreporting
Provide a breakdown of the data validation process for hospitals identified as having palliative care programs, as described in the Appendix, to enhance methodological transparency.
Describing the validation process helps readers assess the reliability of the data.
10.
MEDIUMreporting
Include a statement on how missing data (e.g., nonresponders to AHA survey) were handled in the analysis.
Handling of missing data is a key methodological detail that affects the validity of the results.
11.
MEDIUMreporting
Clarify the definition of 'grade' and the thresholds used for letter grades in the Methodology section.
The grading criteria are not explicitly defined, which limits interpretability of the report card.
12.
LOWcopyedit
Fix the subject-verb agreement error in the Glossary: change 'An Accountable Care Organizations is a group' to 'An Accountable Care Organization is a group'.
This is a minor typo that detracts from the professionalism of the report.
13.
LOWcopyedit
Fix the duplicated sentence fragment in the Glossary definition of 'Sole community provider'.
The duplicated text is a clear copyediting error that should be corrected.
14.
LOWcopyedit
Change 'Hospitals with less than 50 beds' to 'Hospitals with fewer than 50 beds' for consistency with the rest of the report.
Consistency in language ('less' vs 'fewer') improves readability and professionalism.
15.
LOWcopyedit
Consider rephrasing the sentence on page 14 that begins with the symbol 'Æ' for clarity.
The unconventional symbol may confuse readers and should be replaced with standard text.

Full text (67,160 chars)Analyzed: Aug 16, 2026