ArticleIntegrative cancer therapies
Exploring the Use of Two Brief Fatigue Screening Tools in Cancer Outpatient Clinics.
Article in Integrative cancer therapies. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The gap between guidelines and clinical practice in cancer-related fatigue management: a mixed-methods systematic review.Journal of cancer survivorship : research and practice · 2026Pooled it
- A Visual Fatigue Scale to Measure Cancer-Related Fatigue: The Process of Development.Journal of the advanced practitioner in oncology · 2026Article
- Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeCancer fatigue guidelines recommend routine fatigue screening, with further assessment for people reporting moderate to severe fatigue. There is neither a gold-standard, nor a broadly accepted screening method, and knowledge about the impact of screening on care processes is limited. This study aimed to explore the feasibility of 2 fatigue screening methods and current clinical practice in cancer outpatient clinics.
methodsHospital outpatients attending cancer clinics during 1 week completed a five-item survey: a numeric scale for current tiredness, 2 categorical pictorial scales rating tiredness last week and the impact of fatigue (Fatigue Pictogram), screening tool preference and help needed for survey completion. Participant demographics and fatigue documentation by clinical staff for that appointment were extracted from medical records. Analyses used descriptive statistics. Groups were compared using appropriate statistical tests.
resultsOver 75% of participants rated their fatigue consistently as mild or significant on both screening tools. Of 1709 eligible outpatients, 533 (31%) completed the survey. Records were audited for 430 (81%) identifiable participants. Over half of the participants reported moderate or severe tiredness either "now" (237, 57%) and/or "last week" (226, 53%). Clinician documentation of fatigue seldom matched self-reports. Fatigue was rated as severe by 103 participants (24%), yet was noted in only 21 (20%) of these individuals' clinical notes. Both screening tools were equally preferred.
conclusionThe numeric rating scale and Fatigue Pictogram are equally applicable for screening fatigue in cancer outpatient care. There is a high prevalence of clinically significant fatigue in a hospital outpatient setting that is not documented. Adequate care pathways for further management should be established alongside fatigue screening.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.