ArticleFrontiers in oncology2025
Efficacy and safety of massage for postoperative stress in colorectal cancer patients: a randomized, controlled, three-arm trial.
Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Prognostic and diagnostic utility of heart rate variability to predict and understand change in cancer and chemotherapy related fatigue, pain, and neuropathic symptoms: a systematic review.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2025Pooled it
- Implementation of Integrative Nursing for Patients With Cancer Receiving Inpatient Care: Protocol for a Convergent Parallel Mixed Methods Evaluation.JMIR research protocols · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of rhythmic embrocation (RE), a massage technique, on postoperative stress levels (measured by heart rate variability) in colorectal cancer surgery patients compared to empathic conversation. Methods: The study included 68 patients who were randomized into three groups: one received RE from professionals, another from students, and the third received empathic conversations. Stress was quantified using heart rate variability before and after the interventions. Results: The standard deviation of the heartbeat intervals (SDNN) increased more in the professional RE group 9.12 ms (IQR 3.59-12.3 ms) than in the other groups: student RE group 5.68 ms (-0.66-7.5 ms), empathic conversation group 6.64 ms (-1.49-7.38 ms); hence stress decreased more in the professional RE group, although not statistically significant (p= 0.21). Other factors like sleep quality, nausea, pain, and mood did not differ significantly between the groups. No complications were associated with the interventions. Conclusion: RE was safe and a statistically significant superiority of RE on postoperative stress compared to empathic conversations could not be found. Due to high inter- and intraindividual variability a clear pattern of response of the secondary outcomes to RE in comparison to empathic conversations could not be found. The study was limited by a small sample size, high patient variability, effective co-interventions for sleep, pain and nausea, and by an imbalance between groups. The study indicates that future research on RE should focus on a more narrowly defined patient population, increase the sample size, and select comparison groups that are clearly distinct from each other as well as a clinical context with fewer confounding factors. Furthermore, the patient's preferences and previous experiences with massage therapy should be considered. Clinical trial registration: German Clinical Trials Register (www.drks.de), identifier DRKS00023407.
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.