ReviewCancer medicine2024
Finding a needle in a haystack: The identification of clinical practice guidelines for psychosocial oncology through an environmental scan of the academic and gray literature.
Review in Cancer medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Perceptions and Use of Clinical Practice Guidelines in Psychosocial Oncology-A Pan-Canadian Survey of Mental Health and Social Service Professionals.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2026Article
- Finding a needle in a haystack: The identification of clinical practice guidelines for psychosocial oncology through an environmental scan of the academic and gray literature.Cancer medicine · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveClinical practice guidelines (CPGs) are evidence-based tools well-suited to translate the latest research evidence into recommendations for routine clinical care. Given the rapid expansion of psychosocial oncology research, they represent a key opportunity for informing the treatment decisions of overburdened clinicians, standardizing service delivery, and improving patient-reported outcomes. Yet, there is little consensus on how clinicians can most effectively access these tools and little to no information on the current availability and scope of CPGs for the range of psychosocial symptoms and concerns experienced by patients with cancer.
methodOur environmental scan consisted of an academic and gray literature designed to identify currently available CPGs addressing a range of cancer-related psychosocial symptoms.
resultsFindings revealed a total of 23 existing psychosocial oncology CPGs that met full eligibility criteria. The gray literature search was found to be more effective at identifying CPGs (n = 22) compared to the academic search (n = 9).
conclusionSeveral concerns arose from the systematic search. The limited publication of CPGs in peer-reviewed journals may make clinicians and stakeholders more hesitant to implement CPGs due to uncertainties about the methodological rigor of the development process. Further, many existing CPGs are outdated or failed to be updated according to guideline recommendations, meaning that the recommendations may fall short of their purpose to translate up-to-date research findings. FUTURE DIRECTIONS: Future research should seek to systematically assess the quality of existing psychosocial oncology CPGs and shed light on the current state of implementation and adherence in clinical practice in order to better inform guideline developers on the current needs of the psychosocial oncology community.
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.