Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32040797›Full record

SynthesisJournal of clinical psychology in medical settings2021

A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of the Distress Thermometer for Screening Distress in Asian Patients with Cancer.

Huihui Sun, Sudip Thapa, Bangyan Wang, Xiaofen Fu, Shiying Yu

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of clinical psychology in medical settings, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Predictors of emotional distress in patients with lymphoma, gastrointestinal, and breast cancer at the Kuwait Cancer Control Centre.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2025
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. 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

5 authors.

Huihui SunCancer Center of Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, 1095 Jiefang Avenue, Wuhan, 430030, Hubei Province, People's Republic of China.
Sudip ThapaCancer Center of Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, 1095 Jiefang Avenue, Wuhan, 430030, Hubei Province, People's Republic of China.
Bangyan WangCancer Center of Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, 1095 Jiefang Avenue, Wuhan, 430030, Hubei Province, People's Republic of China.
Xiaofen FuCancer Center of Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, 1095 Jiefang Avenue, Wuhan, 430030, Hubei Province, People's Republic of China.
Shiying YuCancer Center of Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, 1095 Jiefang Avenue, Wuhan, 430030, Hubei Province, People's Republic of China. syyu_tjh@163.com.ORCID 0000-0003-3507-3464

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The distress thermometer (DT) is a commonly used tool for screening distress in Asian patients with cancer. However, the optimal cut-off score and discriminative accuracy remain unclear. Hence, this meta-analysis aimed to examine its diagnostic value and optimal cut-off score in Asia. A systematic search was conducted in the PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Library databases. The pooled sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative predictive values, and diagnostic odds ratio were calculated. The area under the curve (AUC) was computed from the summary receiver-operating characteristic (SROC) curve. All analyses were performed using STATA 12.0 software. Finally, 10 studies describing 2851 patients were included. After pooling all the results from the 10 studies, the optimal DT cut-off score was 4 with a pooled sensitivity of 0.78 (95% confidence intervals (CI) 0.68-0.86), specificity of 0.73 (95% CI 0.65-0.80) and AUC of 0.82 (95% CI 0.78-0.85). When the DT was compared to the hospital anxiety and depression scale-total (HADS-T), the cut-off score of 4 showed the best balance between the pooled sensitivity (0.81, 95% CI 0.69-0.89) and specificity (0.74, 95% CI 0.59-0.84), and the AUC was 0.84 (95% CI 0.81-0.87). In conclusion, the DT with a cut-off score of 4 was an effective screening tool in Asian patients with cancer.

Indexed as

NeoplasmsThermometersEarly Detection of CancerHumansMass ScreeningSensitivity and SpecificityStress, PsychologicalCancer patientsDistressDistress thermometerMeta-analysis

Identifiers

PMID32040797

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.