***TASK*** the task is to summarize an input biomedical literature in six sentences 
    ***INPUT*** the input is a biomedical literature 
    ***OUTPUT*** the output is the summary of an input biomedical literature in six sentences 
    ***DOCUMENTATION*** 
    ***EXAMPLES*** 
    Input: To determine whether reliable and valid rankings of pain and discomfort result ing from hospital procedures encountered by advanced dementia patients could be developed from interviews with cognitively intact adults , rankings of pain and discomfort result ing from 16 common procedures were obtained from two sample s of hospitalized , nondemented adults using ten- ( N = 100 ) and five- ( N = 35 ) point numeric rating scales ( NRS ) . Reliability was assessed by having 30 additional subjects complete ten-point NRS representing the ten most frequent procedures in a re-arranged order . By repeated measure analysis of variance , the scales discriminated between procedures ( F = 35.1 , P < 0.001 ) . Subjects could discriminate between pain and discomfort ( F = 21.6 , P < 0.001 ) . The five-point NRS exhibited better subject discrimination between experiences . Reliability was also acceptable . A five-point NRS produced reliable and valid pain and discomfort rankings for 16 common hospital procedures and experiences . These rankings should prove useful in reducing suffering and can serve as surrogates for quantifying pain and discomfort in dementia patients 187 1 . The FOOD Trial Collaboration . Routine oral nutritional supplementation for stroke patients in hospital ( FOOD ) : a multicentre r and omised controlled trial . Lancet 2005 ; 365 : 755–63 . 2 . The FOOD Trial Collaboration . Effect of timing and method of  enteral tube feeding for  dysphagic stroke patients ( FOOD ) : a multicentre r and omised controlled trial . Lancet 2005 ; 365 : 764–72 . 3 . Spiegelhalter DJ , Abrams KR , Myles JP . Prior Distributions in Bayesian Approaches to Clinical Trials and Health-Care Interventions . Chichester : John Wiley & Sons Ltd , 2004 , 139–80 Purpose Quality of care for long-term care ( LTC ) residents with dementia at the end-of-life is often evaluated using st and ardized instruments that were not developed for or thoroughly tested in this population . Given the importance of using appropriate instruments to evaluate the quality of care ( QOC ) and quality of dying ( QOD ) in LTC , we compared the validity and reliability of ten available instruments commonly used for these purpose s. Methods We performed prospect i ve observations and retrospective interviews and surveys of family ( n = 70 ) and professionals ( n = 103 ) of LTC decedents with dementia in the Netherl and s. Results Instruments within the constructs QOC and QOD were highly correlated , and showed moderate to high correlation with overall assessment s of QOC and QOD . Prospect i ve and retrospective ratings using the same instruments differed little . Concordance between family and professional scores was low . Cronbach ’s alpha was mostly adequate . The EOLD – CAD showed good fit with pre-assumed factor structures . The EOLD – SWC and FPCS appear most valid and reliable for measuring QOC , and the EOLD – CAD and MSSE for measuring QOD . The POS performed worst in this population . Conclusions Our comparative study of psychometric properties of instruments allows for informed selection of QOC and QOD measures for LTC residents with dementia 
    Output:
    
Conclusions : We systematic ally derived and assessed a set of  quality indicators  using a robust framework that provides clear definitions of aspects of palliative care , which are dementia specific , and strengthens the theoretical underpinning of new complex interventions in end-of-life care in dementia