Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28132089›Full record

ArticleSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2017

Effects of compensatory cognitive training intervention for breast cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy: a pilot study.

Jin-Hee Park, Yong Sik Jung, Ku Sang Kim, Sun Hyoung Bae

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 10 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 10 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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 10 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Psychological interventions for women with non-metastatic breast cancer.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2023
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Computerized programs for cancer survivors with cognitive problems: a systematic review.Journal of cancer survivorship : research and practice · 2019
    Pooled it
  7. Psychostimulants for cancer-related cognitive impairment in adult cancer survivors: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2019
    Pooled it
  8. Cognitive rehabilitation for cancer-related cognitive dysfunction: a systematic review.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2019
    Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Cognitive Function in Older Adults With Cancer: Assessment, Management, and Research Opportunities.Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2021
    Review
  20. Review
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

4 authors.

Jin-Hee ParkCollege of Nursing ·Institute of Nursing Science, Ajou University, 164, World cup-Ro, Yeongtong-Gu, Suwon, 16499, South Korea.
Yong Sik JungSchool of Medicine, Ajou University, 164, World cup-Ro, Yeongtong-Gu, Suwon, 16499, South Korea.
Ku Sang KimDepartment of Surgery, Breast-Thyroid Center, Ulsan City Hospital, 1007, Saneop-ro, Buk-gu, Ulsan, 44238, South Korea.
Sun Hyoung BaeCollege of Nursing ·Institute of Nursing Science, Ajou University, 164, World cup-Ro, Yeongtong-Gu, Suwon, 16499, South Korea. shyoung@ajou.ac.kr.ORCID 0000-0002-4890-619X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeNumerous breast cancer patients experience cognitive changes during and after chemotherapy. Chemotherapy-related cognitive impairment can significantly affect quality of life. This pilot study attempted to determine the effects of a compensatory cognitive training on the objective and subjective cognitive functioning of breast cancer patients receiving adjuvant chemotherapy.

methodsFifty-four patients were assigned to either a compensatory cognitive training or waitlist condition. They were assessed at baseline (T1), the completion of the 12-week intervention (T2), and 6 months after intervention completion (T3). Outcomes were assessed using the standardized neuropsychological tests and the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Cognitive Function (FACT-Cog), version 3. Raw data were converted to T-scores based on baseline scores, and a repeated-measures ANCOVA, adjusting for age, intelligence, depression, and treatment, was used for analysis. The effect sizes for differences in means were calculated.

resultsThe intervention group improved significantly over time compared to the waitlist group on objective cognitive function. Among ten individual neuropsychological measures, immediate memory, delayed memory, verbal fluency in category, and verbal fluency in letter showed significant group × time interaction. In subjective cognitive function, scores of the waitlist group significantly decrease over time on perceived cognitive impairments, in contrast to those of the intervention group.

conclusionThe 12-week compensatory cognitive training significantly improved the objective and subjective cognitive functioning of breast cancer patients. Because this was a pilot study, further research using a larger sample and longer follow-up durations is necessary.

Indexed as

AdultBreast NeoplasmsChemotherapy, AdjuvantCognition DisordersFemaleHumansMiddle AgedNeuropsychological TestsPilot ProjectsQuality of LifeAttentionBreast neoplasmsChemotherapyCognitionCompensatory cognitive trainingMemory

Identifiers

PMID28132089

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.