Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20596731›Full record

SynthesisSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2010

A review and recommendations for optimal outcome measures of anxiety, depression and general distress in studies evaluating psychosocial interventions for English-speaking adults with heterogeneous cancer diagnoses.

Tim Luckett, Phyllis N Butow, Madeleine T King, Mayumi Oguchi, Gaynor Heading, Nadine A Hackl, Nicole Rankin, Melanie A Price

Registry-linked trialAbstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02063828 (Reducing Lung Cancer-Related Anxiety), which is not on this map. Cited by 61 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
61citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT02063828 naterminatednot on this mapstarted 2015, after this paper: background citation

Reducing Lung Cancer-Related Anxiety (RELAX)

TypeinterventionalSponsorWake Forest University Health SciencesRan2015 to 2019Enrolled46ConditionsLung CancerArmsGroup A - Device guided breathing low dose, Group B - Device guided breathing high dose, Group C - Usual Breathing Control Group
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

61 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Measurement properties of depression questionnaires in patients with diabetes: a systematic review.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2018
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Exercise effects on depressive symptoms in cancer survivors: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2012
    Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Lean/Sizzurp Ingredients, Use, and Coping With Mental Health Symptoms.Substance abuse : research and treatment · 2023
    Article
  20. Article

1 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Tim LuckettSchool of Psychology, University of Sydney, Camperdown, Sydney, Australia. tim.luckett@sydney.edu.au
Phyllis N Butow
Madeleine T King
Mayumi Oguchi
Gaynor Heading
Nadine A Hackl
Nicole Rankin
Melanie A Price

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe objective of this paper is to inform choice of optimal patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) of anxiety, depression and general distress for studies evaluating psychosocial interventions for English-speaking adults with heterogenous cancer diagnoses.

methodsA systematic review was conducted to identify all PROMs used to assess anxiety, depression and general distress in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of psychosocial interventions for people with cancer published between 1999 and May 2009. Candidate PROMs were evaluated for content, evidence of reliability and validity, clinical meaningfulness, comparison data, efficiency, ease of administration, cognitive burden and track record in identifying treatment effects in RCTs of psychosocial interventions. Property ratings were weighted and summed to give an overall score out of 100.

resultsThe Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) scored highest overall (weighted score = 77.5), followed by the unofficial short-form of the Profile of Mood States (POMS), the POMS-37 (weighted score = 60), and the Centre for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale (CES-D) and original POMS (weighted score = 55 each).

conclusionsThe HADS' efficiency and substantial track record recommend its use where anxiety, mixed affective disorders or general distress are outcomes of interest. However, continuing controversy concerning the HADS depression scale cautions against dependence where depressive disorders are of primary interest. Where cost is a concern, the POMS-37 is recommended to measure anxiety or mixed affective disorders but does not offer a suitable index of general distress and, like the HADS, emphasises anhedonia in measuring depression. Where depression is the sole focus, the CES-D is recommended.

Indexed as

AdultAnxietyDepressionHumansNeoplasmsOutcome Assessment, Health CarePsychiatric Status Rating ScalesPsychometricsRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicStress, Psychological

Identifiers

PMID20596731

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.