Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26316925›Full record

ReviewCurrent breast cancer reports

Illness Perceptions in Women with Breast Cancer-a Systematic Literature Review.

Ad A Kaptein, Jan W Schoones, Maarten J Fischer, Melissa S Y Thong, Judith R Kroep, Koos J M van der Hoeven

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Current breast cancer reports. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
37citing papers in PubMed, 1 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

37 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

6 authors.

Ad A KapteinMedical Psychology, Leiden University Medical Center (LUMC), PO Box 9600, 2300 RC Leiden, The Netherlands.
Jan W SchoonesWalaeus Library, LUMC, PO Box 9600, 2300 RC Leiden, The Netherlands.
Maarten J FischerClinical Oncology, LUMC, PO Box 9600, 2300 RC Leiden, The Netherlands.
Melissa S Y ThongMedical and Clinical Psychology, Tilburg University, PO Box 90 153, 5000 LE Tilburg, The Netherlands.
Judith R KroepClinical Oncology, LUMC, PO Box 9600, 2300 RC Leiden, The Netherlands.
Koos J M van der HoevenClinical Oncology, LUMC, PO Box 9600, 2300 RC Leiden, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Women with breast cancer respond to the illness and its medical management in their own personal way. Their coping behavior and self-management are determined by their views (cognitions) and feelings (emotions) about symptoms and illness: their illness perceptions. This paper reports the results of a systematic literature review of illness perceptions and breast cancer. In the 12 studies identified, published between 2012 and 2015, illness perceptions were found to be important concomitants of medical and behavioral outcomes: fear of recurrence, distress, quality of life, satisfaction with medical care, use of traditional healers, and risk perception. Intervention studies are called for where the effects are examined of replacing unhelpful illness perceptions by more constructive ones. Health care providers do well by incorporating illness perceptions in their care for women with breast cancer, as this is instrumental in improving patients' quality of life.

Indexed as

Breast cancerCognitionsEmotionsIllness perceptionsQuality of lifeSystematic literature review

Identifiers

PMID26316925
PMCPMC4546700

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.