Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34527779›Full record

ArticleAsia-Pacific journal of oncology nursing

Barriers in Nursing Practice in Cancer Cachexia: A Scoping Review.

Rika Sato, Tateaki Naito, Naoko Hayashi

Abstract readScoping Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Asia-Pacific journal of oncology nursing. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
–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

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Developing a supportive care pathway for sarcopenia prevention in nasopharyngeal carcinoma: a context-sensitive and implementation-oriented approach.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. 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

3 authors.

Rika SatoDivision of Nursing, Shizuoka Cancer Center, Shizuoka, Japan.
Tateaki NaitoDivision of Thoracic Oncology, Shizuoka Cancer Center, Shizuoka, Japan.
Naoko HayashiGraduate School of Nursing Science, St Luke's International University, Tokyo, Japan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This scoping review aims to identify the barriers in practice and clinical trials for oncology nurses in cancer cachexia. We used the framework proposed by Arksey and O'Malley and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for scoping reviews. Studies written in English and published between 2008 and 2021 were retrieved from five databases: MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and EMBASE. A total of 1075 studies were identified, and 34 full-text studies were assessed for eligibility by three researchers. Seventeen studies met the inclusion criteria. This review revealed several barriers to nursing practice and clinical trials in cancer cachexia. First, health-care professionals, including nurses, faced individual barriers (insufficient understanding and skills for diagnosis and management) and environmental barriers (lack of standardized screening tools or treatment options, difficulties in collaboration with other professions, and limited human resources) in practice. Second, studies on nurse-led interventions for cancer cachexia were relatively few and different in objectives, making it challenging to integrate the outcomes. Finally, there were no established educational programs for nurses that explicitly focused on cancer cachexia. This scoping review revealed individual and environmental barriers in nursing practice. In addition, there have relatively few clinical trials involving oncology nurses in cancer cachexia. Continuing education for nurses should cover cancer cachexia to improve the quality of oncology care in the future. It is also necessary to standardize practical assessment tools that are easy to assess daily and lead to interventions and develop nurse-led multidisciplinary care.

Indexed as

Cancer cachexianurses' rolenursing carescoping review

Identifiers

PMID34527779
PMCPMC8420920

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
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.