Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36040671›Full record

SynthesisSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2022

For whom and what outcomes does cognitive-behavioral-therapy work among cancer survivors: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Anao Zhang, Kaipeng Wang, Kate Blumenstein, Anna Brose, Chris Kemp, Dalton Meister, Phyllis Solomon

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
3.6field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

15 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 26 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. 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

7 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.

Anao ZhangUniversity of Michigan School of Social Work, 1080 South University Avenue, MI, 48109, Ann Arbor, USA. zhangan@med.umich.edu.
Kaipeng WangUniversity of Denver Graduate School of Social Work, CO, Denver, USA.
Kate BlumensteinRosalind Franklin University Chicago Medical School, Chicago, IL, USA.
Anna BroseWheaton College in Illinois, Chicago, IL, USA.
Chris KempUniversity of Michigan School of Social Work, 1080 South University Avenue, MI, 48109, Ann Arbor, USA.
Dalton MeisterUniversity of Michigan School of Social Work, 1080 South University Avenue, MI, 48109, Ann Arbor, USA.
Phyllis SolomonUniversity of Pennsylvania School of Social Policy & Practice, PA, Philadelphia, USA.
South University · USRosalind Franklin University of Medicine and Science · USUniversity of Denver · USUniversity of Michigan–Ann Arbor · USUniversity of Pennsylvania · USWheaton College - Illinois · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of CBT for individuals diagnosed with cancer across a broad range of outcome domains, i.e., functional health, psychological health, health behaviors, social relational, and general wellness.

methodsA comprehensive search of 7 databases, 91 published reviews, and 4 professional websites was performed on August 30th, 2021. English-language clinical trials of CBT for cancer patients/survivors were included. Studies were independently screened, and data were extracted by 2 reviewers, and discrepancies were resolved by consensus among the investigative team. A total of 151 clinical trials (154 articles) published between 1986 and 2021 were included in the analysis.

resultsCBT was overall effective for cancer patients/survivors in the domains of functional health, g = 0.931, p < 0.001, psychological health, g = 0.379, p < 0.001, and general wellness, g = 0.257, p < 0.001, but ineffective in domains of health behaviors, g = 0.792, p > 0.05, and social relational outcomes, g = 0.319, p > 0.05. Additional subgroup and moderator analyses further revealed CBT's differential treatment effect for different within domain outcomes, across different cancer disease stages, and CBT delivery format.

conclusionsFindings of the study showed that CBT is an effective treatment for individuals diagnosed with cancer. However, treatment effects differ by important disease- and intervention-related factors, which should be considered when recommending CBT for cancer patients/survivors.

Indexed as

Cancer SurvivorsCognitive Behavioral TherapyNeoplasmsCognitionHumansTreatment OutcomeCancerCognitive-behavioral therapyMeta-analysisSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID36040671
OpenAlexW4293589934

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.