SynthesisBMC cancer2024
Subjective and objective financial toxicity among colorectal cancer patients: a systematic review.
Synthesis in BMC cancer, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Prevalence and determinants of financial toxicity in patients with colorectal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.International journal for equity in health · 2026Pooled it
- Financial hardship in cancer family caregivers: a scoping review.BMC palliative care · 2026Article
- Associations between financial toxicity, health-related quality of life, and well-being in Indonesian patients with breast cancer.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2025Article
- The discrepancy between objective and subjective assessments of catastrophic health expenditure: evidence from China.Health policy and planning · 2025Article
- Social Support, Quality of Life, and Financial Toxicity Among Patients with Hepatocellular Carcinoma.Journal of hepatocellular carcinoma · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundColorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer type worldwide. Colorectal cancer treatment costs vary between countries as it depends on policy factors such as treatment algorithms, availability of treatments and whether the treatment is government-funded. Hence, the objective of this systematic review is to determine the prevalence and measurements of financial toxicity (FT), including the cost of treatment, among colorectal cancer patients.
methodsMedline via PubMed platform, Science Direct, Scopus, and CINAHL databases were searched to find studies that examined CRC FT. There was no limit on the design or setting of the study.
resultsOut of 819 papers identified through an online search, only 15 papers were included in this review. The majority (n = 12, 80%) were from high-income countries, and none from low-income countries. Few studies (n = 2) reported objective FT denoted by the prevalence of catastrophic health expenditure (CHE), 60% (9 out of 15) reported prevalence of subjective FT, which ranges from 7 to 80%, 40% (6 out of 15) included studies reported cost of CRC management- annual direct medical cost ranges from USD 2045 to 10,772 and indirect medical cost ranges from USD 551 to 795.
conclusionsThere is a lack of consensus in defining and quantifying financial toxicity hindered the comparability of the results to yield the mean cost of managing CRC. Over and beyond that, information from some low-income countries is missing, limiting global representativeness.
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.