Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32815410›Full record

SynthesisIntegrative cancer therapies

A Systematic Literature Review of Animal-Assisted Interventions in Oncology (Part I): Methods and Results.

Timothy R N Holder, Margaret E Gruen, David L Roberts, Tamara Somers, Alper Bozkurt

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Integrative cancer therapies. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Timothy R N HolderUniversity of North Carolina and North Carolina State University Joint Department of Biomedical Engineering, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-6788-9970
Margaret E GruenNorth Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA.
David L RobertsNorth Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA.
Tamara SomersDuke University, Durham, NC, USA.
Alper BozkurtUniversity of North Carolina and North Carolina State University Joint Department of Biomedical Engineering, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Animal-assisted interventions (AAIs) use human-animal interactions to positive effect in various contexts including cancer care. As the first installment of a 2-part series, this systematic literature review focuses on the research methods and quantitative results of AAI studies in oncology. We find methodological consistency in the use of canines as therapy animals, in the types of high-risk patients excluded from studies, and in the infection precautions taken with therapy animals throughout cancer wards. The investigated patient endpoints are not significantly affected by AAI, with the exceptions of improvements in oxygen consumption, quality of life, depression, mood, and satisfaction with therapy. The AAI field in oncology has progressed significantly since its inception and has great potential to positively affect future patient outcomes. To advance the field, future research should consistently improve the methodological design of studies, report data more completely, and focus more on the therapy animal's well-being.

Indexed as

Animal Assisted TherapyNeoplasmsAffectAnimalsDogsHumansMedical OncologyQuality of Lifeanimal-assisted activitiesanimal-assisted interventionsanimal-assisted therapycancerhuman-animal bondoncologyquantitative

Identifiers

PMID32815410
PMCPMC7444110

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.