Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30600642›Full record

SynthesisCancer medicine2019

"Not just another meta-analysis": Sources of heterogeneity in psychosocial treatment effect on cancer survival.

Spela Mirosevic, Booil Jo, Helena C Kraemer, Mona Ershadi, Eric Neri, David Spiegel

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Cancer medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
4.1field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 59 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Review
  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 at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Spela MirosevicDepartment of Family Medicine, Faculty of Medicine Ljubljana, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia.ORCID 0000-0001-5004-0607
Booil JoDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California.
Helena C KraemerDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California.
Mona ErshadiDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California.
Eric NeriDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California.
David SpiegelDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Stanford University School of Medicine, Stanford, California.
Stanford University · USUniversity of Ljubljana · SI

Funding

PSYCHOSOCIAL TREATMENT EFFECTS ON CANCER SURVIVALR01MH047226 · NIMH · STANFORD UNIVERSITY · PI SPIEGEL, DAVID · 1990 to 2004
$2.0M
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCurrently, there are eight meta-analyses that address the question whether psychosocial intervention can prolong survival with widely disparate conclusions. One reason for inconsistent findings may be the methods by which previous meta-analyses were conducted.

methodsDatabases were searched to identify valid randomized controlled trials that compared psychosocial intervention with usual care. Hazard ratios (HRs) and their confidence intervals were pooled to estimate the strength of the treatment effect on survival time, and z-tests were performed to assess possible heterogeneity of effect sizes associated with different patient and treatment characteristics.

resultsTwelve trials involving 2439 cancer patients that met screening criteria were included. The overall effect favored the treatment group with a HR of 0.71 (95% Cl 0.58-0.88; P = 0.002). An effect size favoring treatment group was observed in studies sampling lower vs higher percentage of married patients' (NNT = 4.3 vs NNT = 15.4), when Cognitive-Behavioral Therapy was applied at early vs late cancer stage (NNT = 2.3 vs NNT = -28.6), and among patients' older vs younger than 50 (NNT = 4.2 vs NNT = -20.5).

conclusionsPsychosocial interventions may have an important effect on survival. Reviewed interventions appear to be more effective in unmarried patients, patients who are older, and those with an early cancer stage who attend CBT. Limitations of previous meta-analysis are discussed.

Indexed as

PsychotherapyHumansNeoplasmsRandomized Controlled Trials as Topicmarital statusmeta-analysisneoplasmspsychosocial support systemssurvival

Identifiers

PMID30600642
PMCPMC6346264
OpenAlexW2906838986

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.