Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40079193›Full record

SynthesisCancer medicine2025

Perioperative Trends in Distress Among Cancer Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Dana G Rowe, Ellen O'Callaghan, Seeley Yoo, Juliet C Dalton, Joshua Woo, Edwin Owolo, Tara Dalton, Margaret O Johnson, Andrea N Goodwin, Kerri-Anne Crowell and 3 more

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Cancer medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Psychological distress, body image, and nutritional status during hospitalization for gynecological cancer surgery: a prospective observational study.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2025
    Observational
  10. Article
  11. 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

13 authors.

Dana G RoweDuke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0007-8709-4773
Ellen O'CallaghanDuke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina, USA.
Seeley YooDuke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina, USA.
Juliet C DaltonDuke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina, USA.
Joshua WooDuke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2849-2604
Edwin OwoloDuke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina, USA.
Tara DaltonDepartment of Neurosurgery, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina, USA.
Margaret O JohnsonDepartment of Neurosurgery, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1208-622X
Andrea N GoodwinDepartment of Sociology, Carolina Population Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA.
Kerri-Anne CrowellBiostatistics Shared Resource, Duke Cancer Institute, Durham, North Carolina, USA.
Samantha KaplanMedical Center Library and Archives, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina, USA.
Melissa M EricksonDepartment of Orthopedic Surgery, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina, USA.
C Rory GoodwinDepartment of Neurosurgery, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6540-2751

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionDistress is common among cancer patients, especially those undergoing surgery. However, no study has systematically analyzed distress trends in this population. The purpose of this study was to systematically review perioperative rates of distress, as well as differences across cancer types, in cancer patients undergoing surgical intervention.

methodsA systematic review was conducted using PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, and APA PsycINFO (searched until July 17, 2023). Included studies were clinical studies of cancer patients undergoing surgery reporting distress measured by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) distress thermometer (DT). Data on study and patient characteristics, and preoperative and postoperative distress rates were extracted. Results were pooled, and overall distress rates were calculated as weighted means. Subanalysis by cancer type was performed. Three meta-analyses were conducted: (1) preoperative distress, (2) postoperative distress, and (3) change in distress.

resultsFifty-seven studies including 13,410 cancer patients were reviewed. Most patients were female (67.4%), White (77.8%), and married/partnered (72.2%), with an average age of 59.2 years. The most common cancers were breast (14 studies), brain (8), and colorectal (7). Weighted mean pre- and postoperative distress scores were 5.1 and 4.5, respectively. Distress remained high through 30 days postoperatively, then declined thereafter. Brain cancer patients reported the highest postoperative distress (5.1), followed by breast cancer patients (4.9).

conclusionThe perioperative phase is a critical period of elevated distress in cancer patients. Preoperatively, patients experience moderate to severe levels of distress, which persist throughout the early postoperative phase, gradually declining from the 1-month postoperative mark onwards.

Indexed as

NeoplasmsPsychological DistressStress, PsychologicalFemaleHumansMalePerioperative PeriodcancerdistressHRQOLoncology surgeryperioperativequality of life

Identifiers

PMID40079193
PMCPMC11904430

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.