ArticleJMIR research protocols2025
Prognostic Disclosure in Metastatic Breast Cancer: Protocol for a Scoping Review.
Article in JMIR research protocols, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Prognostic disclosure in metastatic breast cancer: a scoping review.The oncologist · 2026Article
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
backgroundPrognostic disclosure enables shared decision-making by keeping patients informed about their health and involved in treatment-related choices. In metastatic cancer, patients who understand their prognosis are better placed to evaluate their health situation, have more realistic expectations about treatment, and better end-of-life (EoL) care. However, many oncologists feel uncomfortable discussing prognoses with their patients, as they worry about causing psychological distress and diminishing hope. Other barriers to prognostic disclosure are associated with the inherent uncertainty of prognostication, which is especially prominent in metastatic breast cancer (mBC), as are a lack of timely discussions about EoL care and poor quality of care at EoL. Despite this background, a preliminary literature search has shown that, to date, knowledge about prognostic disclosure in mBC has not been systematically mapped.
objectiveThe overall aim of this scoping review will be to comprehensively explore the existing literature pertaining to prognostic disclosure in mBC.
methodsThis scoping review will follow Arksey and O'Malley's expanded framework. We will systematically search electronic databases for peer-reviewed, published journal articles to identify appropriate studies. First, 2 members of the research team will independently review titles and abstracts. Then, they will review full texts to establish whether articles meet inclusion criteria. A data chart for collecting and sorting information will be developed. Results will be reported following the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) guidelines and summarized quantitatively and qualitatively.
resultsWe expect to present the results in a scoping review in 2025.
conclusionsTo our knowledge, this scoping review will be the first systematic effort aimed at mapping existing literature on prognostic disclosure in mBC, in which rapidly developing therapeutic approaches and changing disease trajectories generate new uncertainties and place new communicative demands on oncologists. The insights gained from this scoping review will inform the development of an interview schedule with oncologists, oncology residents, oncology nurses, and patients with mBC to explore their experiences, views, and perceptions about prognostic disclosure. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): PRR1-10.2196/57256.
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.