Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37434395›Full record

SynthesisNursing open2023

Efficacy of expressive writing versus positive writing in different populations: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Jiawei Lai, Huijuan Song, Ying Wang, Ying Ren, Shuang Li, Feng Xiao, Shaona Liao, Tingping Xie, Weihuan Zhuang

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Nursing open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
5.0field-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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Navigating rural challenges and promoting posttraumatic growth via expressive writing: a qualitative study among rural breast cancer survivors.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

9 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Jiawei LaiDepartment of Oncology, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China.ORCID 0000-0002-7267-9863
Huijuan SongDepartment of Nursing, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China.ORCID 0000-0001-5255-0213
Ying WangDepartment of Burn, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China.
Ying RenDepartment of Neurosurgery, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China.
Shuang LiDepartment of Nursing, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China.
Feng XiaoDepartment of Nursing, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China.
Shaona LiaoDepartment of Nursing, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China.
Tingping XieDepartment of Neurosurgery, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China.
Weihuan ZhuangDepartment of Oncology, Nanfang Hospital, Southern Medical University, Guangzhou, China.
Nanfang Hospital · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimTo evaluate the efficacy of expressive writing (EW) versus positive writing (PW) in different populations focusing on mood, health and writing content and to provide a basis for nurses to carry out the targeted treatment.

designSystematic review and meta-analysis.

methodsThis study was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Twelve electronic databases and references from articles were searched. All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing EW and PW were included. Statistical analyses were executed using Stata 15.0 software.

resultsTwenty-four RCTs and a total of 1558 participants were analysed. The results showed that for the general population, PW was more positive on mood than EW and could offer more changes in cognitive mechanisms. Among patients, although PW was more conducive to generating positive emotions, EW could stimulate cognitive changes more. Nursing staff should clarify the mechanism of PW and EW, combine the advantages of both and implement intervention according to the characteristics of different populations. NO PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: It does not apply to your work because this study is an analysis of published studies and does not involve patients or the public.

Indexed as

Stress, PsychologicalWritingAffectDatabases, FactualHumanscognitionemotionexpressive writinghealthnursingpositive writing

Identifiers

PMID37434395
PMCPMC10415981
OpenAlexW4383998772

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.