ReviewAsia-Pacific journal of oncology nursing2025
Comparative effectiveness of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions for dyspnea management in advanced cancer: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Review in Asia-Pacific journal of oncology nursing, 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.
- Nonpharmacological dyspnoea-relief strategies in lung cancer: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.European respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society · 2026Pooled it
- Acupuncture and Acupressure for Cancer Symptom Management: an Opinion Statement Based on Preliminary Evidence Mapping.Current treatment options in oncology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This study aimed to evaluate and rank the effectiveness of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions for managing dyspnea severity, anxiety, exercise capacity, and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in patients with advanced cancer. Methods: A comprehensive search of PUBMED, HINARI, CENTRAL, and ResearchGate was conducted to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published up to March 2024. Network meta-analysis was performed to compare interventions, calculating mean differences (MD) and standardized mean differences (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). P-scores were used to rank the interventions. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane tool, and the quality of evidence (QOE) was evaluated using the GRADE framework. Results: A total of 42 RCTs, encompassing 3,832 patients, were included in the analysis. Among the evaluated interventions, high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) demonstrated the most significant improvement in dyspnea relief (SMD = -1.91; 95% CI: -3.32 to -0.49; QOE: moderate), followed by acupressure/reflexology (SMD = -1.04; 95% CI: -2.02 to -0.06; QOE: very low). Activity rehabilitation was the only intervention that significantly reduced anxiety compared to the control group (SMD = -0.64; 95% CI: -0.97 to -0.32; QOE: very low). While all interventions showed trends of improving exercise capacity, none reached statistical significance. Notably, acupressure/reflexology significantly enhanced HRQoL (SMD = 1.55; 95% CI: 0.22 to 2.88; QOE: moderate). Conclusions: Non-pharmacological interventions, particularly HFNC and acupressure/reflexology, were more effective than pharmacological approaches in improving dyspnea relief and HRQoL. However, the low quality of evidence underscores the need for high-quality, large-scale trials to confirm these findings and refine treatment strategies for dyspnea management in advanced cancer patients. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO CRD42023479041.
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.