Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31663182›Full record

SynthesisPsycho-oncology2020

Ajla Mujcic, Matthijs Blankers, Jeroen Bommelé, Brigitte Boon, Anne H Berman, Irma M Verdonck-de Leeuw, Margriet van Laar, Rutger Engels

Open access · bronzeAbstract readMeta-AnalysisReview
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Psycho-oncology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.4field-weighted citation impact, top 18% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Psycho-oncology · 2020
    Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Healthy Behaviors: Prevalence of Uptake Among Cancer Survivors.Clinical journal of oncology nursing · 2020
    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

8 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Ajla MujcicTrimbos Institute, Netherlands Institute of Mental Health and Addiction, Utrecht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-3134-5058
Matthijs BlankersTrimbos Institute, Netherlands Institute of Mental Health and Addiction, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Jeroen BommeléTrimbos Institute, Netherlands Institute of Mental Health and Addiction, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Brigitte BoonAcademy Het Dorp Department Scientific Research, Siza Arnhem, The Netherlands, Arnhem, The Netherlands.
Anne H BermanCentre for Psychiatry Research, Department of Clinical Neuroscience, Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden.
Irma M Verdonck-de LeeuwDepartment of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-4507-4607
Margriet van LaarTrimbos Institute, Netherlands Institute of Mental Health and Addiction, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Rutger EngelsErasmus School of Social and Behavioural Sciences, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Trimbos Institute · NLAmsterdam Neuroscience · NLCRV (Netherlands) · NLErasmus University Rotterdam · NLStockholm University · SE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe objective of this study is to evaluate current evidence for the effectiveness of distance-based interventions to support smoking cessation (SC) or alcohol moderation (AM) among cancer survivors. Secondary, differences in effectiveness are explored regarding multibehaviour interventions versus single-behaviour interventions targeting SC or AM only.

methodsA systematic search of PubMed, PsycINFO, Web of Science, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials was conducted. Intervention studies with and without control groups and randomized controlled trials were included. Random effects meta-analyses were conducted for the main outcomes: SC and AM rates at the follow-up closest to 6 months. Using subgroup analyses and meta-regression, effectiveness of single-behaviour versus multibehaviour interventions was evaluated.

resultsA total of 17 studies with 3796 participants; nine studies on SC only, eight studies on multibehaviour interventions including an SC or AM module, and no studies on AM only were included. All studies had at least some concerns regarding bias. Distance-based SC interventions led to higher cessation rates than control conditions (10 studies, odds ratio [OR] = 1.56; 95% CI, 1.13-2.15, P = .007). Single-behaviour SC interventions reduced smoking rates compared with baseline (risk difference [RD] = 0.29; 95% CI, 0.19-0.39, P < .0001), but multibehaviour interventions did not (RD = 0.13; 95% CI, -0.05 to 0.31, P = 0.15). There was insufficient evidence that distance-based multibehaviour interventions reduced alcohol use compared with controls (three studies, standardized mean difference [SMD] = 0.12; 95% CI, -0.08 to 0.31, P = .24).

conclusionsDistance-based SC interventions are effective in supporting SC among cancer survivors. Single-behaviour SC interventions appear more effective than multibehaviour interventions. No evidence was found for the effectiveness of distance-based AM interventions for cancer survivors.

Indexed as

Behavior TherapyCancer SurvivorsOutcome Assessment, Health CareSmoking CessationTelemedicineAdultAlcohol DrinkingHumansalcoholcancercancer survivorseffectivenessinterventionsmeta-analysisoncologysmoking cessation

Identifiers

PMID31663182
PMCPMC8246955
OpenAlexW2982430485

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.