Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31567984›Full record

SynthesisMedicine2019

Psychological intervention and its immune effect in cancer patients: A meta-analysis.

Ping Zhang, Lin Mo, Xia Li, Qiyao Wang

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 42% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Ping ZhangChildren's Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing.
Lin MoChildren's Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing.
Xia LiChildren's Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing.
Qiyao WangChildren's Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing.
Children's Hospital of Chongqing Medical University · CNChongqing Medical University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo determine whether psychological intervention (PI) changes the levels of immune indicators in cancer patients.

methodsWe conducted a systematic search published up to July 2018, followed by a manual search. Randomized controlled trials were included. Two reviewers independently screened and extracted data, which were analyzed using Review manager 5.3.

resultsTwenty-nine studies were included including four kinds of PI. Only stress management didn't result in immune changes; only cognitive behavior therapy affect NK cell activity. PI did not change immune indicators on cancer patients who completed therapy. Compared to patients not receiving PI, those received PI had significantly higher NK cell count and activity in whole blood; and serum levels of IL-2, IL-4, IFN-γ, lgA, and lgG. However, the differences in the serum levels of IL-6, IL-10, TNF-α, and IgM were not significant (P > .05), and the changes recorded for the CD3, CD4, and CD8 cell count, and CD4/CD8 ratios were inconsistent.

conclusionsAlthough there are considerable evidences of PI's immune effect, but its magnitude was moderate. Therefore, it may be premature to conclude whether PI affects immunity of cancer patients. Further research is warranted, with special focus on the PI types and treatment methods.

Indexed as

PsychotherapyHumansImmunityNeoplasms

Identifiers

PMID31567984
PMCPMC6756636
OpenAlexW2977540389

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.