ArticlePloS one2025
Development of a psychological management intervention protocol for colorectal cancer patients: a Delphi study on benefit finding.
Article in PloS one, 2025. 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.
- Trial
- Multidisciplinary collaborative enhanced recovery after surgery nursing in patients with colorectal cancer: A comparative study.World journal of gastrointestinal oncology · 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study aimed to develop Benefit Finding intervention protocols for colorectal cancer patients on psychological management in China.
methodsWe created an initial draft of such a protocol through a comprehensive literature review and group discussions. A two-round Delphi study via WeChat correspondence was conducted, with a group of 14 Chinese experts. Experts rated and scored the importance of indicators on a five-point Likert scale.
resultsThe response rates for two rounds both were 100%(n=14), with an authority coefficient of 0.86. The mean value assigned to the importance of the items ranged from 4.07 to 5.00, with coefficients of variation between 0.00 and 0.17; the Kendall coefficient was 0.214 (P<0.05). Ultimately, we established an index system comprising 8 primary items, with respective weights of 0.133, 0.131, 0.122, 0.116, 0.129, 0.122, 0.124, and 0.124. Additionally, we identified 25 secondary items and 53 tertiary items.
conclusionThis protocol demonstrates authenticity, objectivity, and broad applicability, providing a valuable reference for future psychological care and self-management strategies for colorectal cancer patients following surgery.
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.