[Research in palliative care; is something better than nothing?]

How strictly should we apply the rules of good clinical research, when the research in question is performed with terminally ill patients? Recently, a retrospective study into the effectiveness of radiotherapy for sialorrhoea in patients with a degenerative disease, such as amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, was published in the Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Geneeskunde(Dutch Journal of Medicine). This commentary defends the position that in palliative care sometimes having weak scientific evidence is better than having nothing. Here, the need of the patient and the intention of the physician are 2 ethically relevant issues that need to be taken into account. If there is at least some evidence to believe an intervention is beneficial for the patient, this is a strong reason to provide it. And if such intervention can only be studied in a methodologically suboptimal way, then it is better to have that information, albeit not perfect, than none at all. This is not a justification of weak studies as such. If possible, palliative care should be as evidence-based as all other types of medical care. However, when the circumstances make methodologically perfect research impossible, it is better to act on weak evidence than on none at all.