Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36179114›Full record

GuidelinePhysical therapy2022

Screening and Assessment of Cancer-Related Fatigue: A Clinical Practice Guideline for Health Care Providers.

Mary Insana Fisher, Joy C Cohn, Shana E Harrington, Jeanette Q Lee, Daniel Malone

Erratum issuedOpen access · bronzeAbstract readPractice Guideline
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Guideline in Physical therapy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 27 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
3.8field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

27 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 40 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Comparative analysis of fatigue and mental health in sexual and gender minority cancer survivors.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026
    Article
  6. Current non-pharmacological practices for cancer-related fatigue in oncology rehabilitation: results of a national provider survey.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Identification of distinct fatigue trajectories in patients with nasopharyngeal carcinoma undergoing radiotherapy: an observational longitudinal study.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2025
    Observational
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Physicians' perspectives on cancer-related fatigue management and their suggestions for improvements in medical training: a cross-sectional survey study in Germany.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2024
    Observational
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.

Mary Insana FisherDepartment of Physical Therapy, University of Dayton, Dayton, Ohio, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-0531-591X
Joy C CohnGood Shepherd Penn Partners, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.
Shana E HarringtonExercise Science Department, University of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-3713-3371
Jeanette Q LeeDepartment of Physical Therapy and Rehabilitation Science, University of California at San Francisco/San Francisco State University, San Francisco, California, USA.
Daniel MaloneDepartment of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, University of Colorado, Aurora, Colorado, USA.
Good Shepherd Penn Partners · USSan Francisco State University · USUniversity of Colorado Denver · USUniversity of Dayton · USUniversity of South Carolina · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Cancer-related fatigue (CRF) is the most common side effect of cancer treatment. Regular surveillance is recommended, but few clinical practice guidelines transparently assess study bias, quality, and clinical utility in deriving recommendations of screening and assessment methods. The purpose of this clinical practice guideline (CPG) is to provide recommendations for the screening and assessment of CRF for health care professions treating individuals with cancer. Following best practices for development of a CPG using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) Statement and Emergency Care Research Institute (ECRI) Guidelines Trust Scorecard, this CPG included a systematic search of the literature, quality assessment of included evidence, and stakeholder input from diverse health care fields to derive the final CPG. Ten screening and 15 assessment tools supported by 114 articles were reviewed. One screen (European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer-Quality of Life Questionnaire-30 Core Questionnaire) and 3 assessments (Piper Fatigue Scale-Revised, Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue, and Patient Reported Outcome Measurement Information System [PROMIS] Fatigue-SF) received an A recommendation ("should be used in clinical practice"), and 1 screen and 5 assessments received a B recommendation ("may be used in clinical practice"). Health care providers have choice in determining appropriate screening and assessment tools to be used across the survivorship care continuum. The large number of tools available to screen for or assess CRF may result in a lack of comprehensive research evidence, leaving gaps in the body of evidence for measurement tools. More research into the responsiveness of these tools is needed in order to adopt their use as outcome measures. IMPACT: Health care providers should screen for and assess CRF using one of the tools recommended by this CPG.

Indexed as

NeoplasmsQuality of LifeEarly Detection of CancerFatigueHealth PersonnelHumansNeoplasmOutcome AssessmentPsychometrics

Identifiers

PMID36179114
PMCPMC9525018
OpenAlexW4298112028

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.