SynthesisSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2026
Methodologic challenges of patient reported outcome research: A systematic review of the treatment of cancer related fatigue with open label placebos and the trials.
Synthesis in Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis review assesses the efficacy of Open Label Placebos (OLPs) for the treatment of Cancer Related Fatigue (CRF) and the methodological challenges of such trials.
methodsWe included randomized controlled trials comparing OLPs to treatment as usual or waitlisted controls in adults (≥ 18 years) with moderate CRF. Eligible participants included cancer survivors and advanced cancer patients. We searched PubMed, MEDLINE, and Cochrane databases on July 12, 2025. Risk of bias (ROB) was assessed using the Cochrane ROB2 tool. Results were synthesized narratively due to heterogeneity. Quality of evidence was assessed for the use of OLPs for the treatment of CRF in cancer survivors using the GRADE approach.
resultsThree RCTs (total N = 87) met inclusion criteria, two studied the changes in cancer survivors, one studied advanced cancer patients. All trials had high ROB, particularly due to the lack of blinding of assessors (patients) and the use of patient-reported outcomes. All studies reported CRF improvement in the OLP arms. Two showed significant reductions in fatigue compared to controls. The quality of evidence was found to be very low.
conclusionThough an overall positive effect is seen, the evidence supporting OLPs for CRF is of very low quality. This is mostly due to methodological challenges seen in trials using patient-reported outcomes where the participants can discern their allocation. Larger, methodologically robust studies are needed to clarify OLP efficacy. Functional fatigue scales, in place of patient-reported outcomes, may reduce bias in future trials. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42024449166.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41547683What 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.