ArticleBMJ open2015
Interventions to improve screening and appropriate referral of patients with cancer for distress: systematic review protocol.
Article in BMJ open, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Interventions to improve screening and appropriate referral of patients with cancer for psychosocial distress: systematic review.BMJ open · 2018Pooled it
- Predictor Variables and Screening Protocol for Depressive and Anxiety Disorders in Cancer Outpatients.PloS one · 2016Trial
- Cancer-Related Psychological Distress over the Past Decade: A Bibliometric Analysis of Research Trends, Hotspots, and Emerging Areas.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Perioperative mental health needs in urological and genitourinary surgery: a scoping review.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Perspectives on Emotional Care: A Qualitative Study with Cancer Patients, Carers, and Health Professionals.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- A cross-sectional audit of current practices and areas for improvement of distress screening and management in Australian cancer services: is there a will and a way to improve?Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2020Article
- Article
- Protocol for a mixed methods longitudinal enquiry into the impact of a community based supportive service for people affected by cancer.BMC cancer · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionIt is estimated that 35-40% of patients with cancer experience distress at some stage during their illness. Distress may affect functioning, capacity to cope, treatment compliance, quality of life and survival of patients with cancer. Best practice clinical guidelines recommend routine psychosocial distress screening and referral for further assessment and/or psychosocial support for patients with cancer. However, evidence suggests this care is not provided consistently. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We developed our methods following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement. The review is registered with PROSPERO and any amendments to the protocol will be tracked. The primary aim of this systematic review is to examine the impact of interventions delivered in healthcare settings that are aimed at (1) improving routine screening of patients for psychosocial distress and (2) referral of distressed patients with cancer for further assessment and/or psychosocial support. The effectiveness of such interventions in reducing psychosocial distress, and any unintended adverse effect of the intervention will also be assessed in patients with cancer. Data sources will include the bibliographic databases Cochrane Central Register of Controlled trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and CINAHL. Eligible studies must compare an intervention (or two or more interventions) in a healthcare setting to improve the rate of screening for psychosocial distress and/or referral for further assessment and/or psychosocial support for patients with cancer with no intervention or 'usual' practice. Two investigators will independently review titles and abstracts, followed by full article reviews and data extraction. Disagreements will be resolved by consensus and if necessary, a third reviewer. Where studies are sufficiently homogenous, trial data will be pooled and meta-analyses performed. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: No ethical issues are foreseen. The findings of this study will be disseminated widely via peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration number CRD4 2015017518.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.