ReviewCancers2025
Assessment Tools to Examine Illness Understanding in Patients with Advanced Cancer: A Systematic Review of Randomized Clinical Trials.
Review in Cancers, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Determining patient-oncologist cancer treatment intent concordance using systematic screening in a supportive care center.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026Article
- Association of CONUT Score with Ultrasound-Measured Muscle Mass and 30-, 45-, and 60-Day Mortality in Geriatric Palliative Care Patients: A Prospective Observational Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Domains of prognostic awareness, quality of life, and psychological distress in patients with advanced cancer.The oncologist · 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The best tools to assess patient illness understanding are unclear. Here, we examined the assessment tools for illness understanding administered in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) involving patients with advanced cancer, how accuracy of illness understanding was assessed, and each tool's level of accuracy. We conducted a systematic review of Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE, and Web of Science from database inception to 28 February 2024. We included all RCTs that reported on illness understanding assessments in cancer patients. The assessment measures were classified into five categories: prognostic awareness, health status, curability, treatment intent, and treatment risks/benefits. We extracted the questions, answers, definitions of accuracy, and accuracy rates of each category. The final sample included 27 articles based on 16 RCTs; five articles (19%) had a Jadad score of ≥3. Among these articles, 10 (37%) assessed prognostic awareness, 4 (15%) assessed health status, 9 (33%) assessed curability, 11 (41%) assessed treatment intent, and 3 (11%) assessed treatment risks/benefits. Only four RCTs examined illness understanding as a primary outcome or communication intervention. We observed significant heterogeneity in the questions, answers, definition of accuracy, and accuracy rate of patients' responses for all themes except for health status. The accuracy rate ranged from 6% to 33% for prognostic awareness, 45% to 59% for health status, 35% to 84% for curability, 26% to 88% for treatment intent, and 17% to 75% for treatment risks/benefits. This study highlights significant variation in current illness understanding assessments and opportunities for standardization to support clinical practice and research.
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.