Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31218073›Full record

ArticleHealth psychology open

Qualitative and quantitative analysis of the defensive profile in breast cancer women: A pilot study.

Mariagrazia Di Giuseppe, Annarita Di Silvestre, Rosa Lo Sterzo, Paul Hitchcott, Angelo Gemignani, Ciro Conversano

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health psychology open. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  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.

Mariagrazia Di GiuseppeDepartment of Surgical, Medical and Molecular Pathology and Critical Care Medicine, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy.
Annarita Di SilvestreDepartment of Clinical Oncology, Hospital Santo Spirito, Pescara, Italy.
Rosa Lo SterzoDepartment of Clinical Oncology, Hospital Santo Spirito, Pescara, Italy.
Paul HitchcottDepartment of Surgical, Medical and Molecular Pathology and Critical Care Medicine, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy.
Angelo GemignaniDepartment of Surgical, Medical and Molecular Pathology and Critical Care Medicine, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy.
Ciro ConversanoDepartment of Surgical, Medical and Molecular Pathology and Critical Care Medicine, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study analyzed the defensive functioning and profile of nine breast cancer women and identifies the differences from other cancer patients (N0) in the way they deal with internal conflicts and stressful situations related to the illness. Patients were interviewed and evaluated using the Defense Mechanisms Rating Scale Q-sort. Mean differences analysis showed that breast cancer patients use more reaction formation, omnipotence, and rationalization and less idealization of others-image and autistic fantasy, compared with other-site cancer patients. From the qualitative analysis of the defensive profile, displacement and repression appeared among the most representative defense mechanisms of breast cancer patients.

Indexed as

adaptivenessbreast cancercancer-related stressdefense mechanism rating scalesdefense mechanismsDefense Mechanisms Rating Scale Q-sortdefensive profilepsycho-oncology

Identifiers

PMID31218073
PMCPMC6558547

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.