SynthesisJournal of clinical nursing2026
Non-Pharmacological Interventions for Cough in Patients With Lung Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Journal of clinical nursing, 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
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
backgroundCough, a prevalent and debilitating symptom of lung cancer, remains poorly managed. Accumulating evidence on non-pharmacological interventions for lung cancer cough necessitates systematic evaluation to assess their efficacy.
aimTo synthesise evidence on non-pharmacological interventions for managing cough in lung cancer patients.
designA systematic review and meta-analysis following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses reporting guideline.
methodsNine databases were searched from inception to December 2024 to identify randomised controlled trials. Study quality was appraised using the Revised Cochrane Risk-of-Bias Tool for Randomised Trials. Meta-analyses were performed for quantitative synthesis, with sources of heterogeneity examined using meta-regression and subgroup analyses.
resultsThirty-eight studies representing 2995 lung cancer patients were identified. These studies investigated acupuncture therapy, moxibustion, pulmonary rehabilitation, self-management intervention, physical exercises, psychoeducation support, mindfulness, and multicomponent interventions. Non-pharmacological interventions showed positive effects on cough severity and cough-related quality of life. Additional benefits were observed for expectoration, dyspnea, and general quality of life. Pulmonary rehabilitation showed a greater effect on cough severity than other non-pharmacological interventions.
conclusionNon-pharmacological interventions are promising in improving cough, expectoration, dyspnea, and general quality of life among lung cancer patients. Pulmonary rehabilitation showed the most promising effect. Future research should adopt objective cough measures in addition to self-reported measures. IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PROFESSION AND/OR PATIENT CARE: Non-pharmacological interventions demonstrated potential effects in relieving cough and additional benefits in improving expectoration, dyspnea, and general quality of life among lung cancer patients. Healthcare professionals may adopt pulmonary rehabilitation for cough and related symptoms in lung cancer patients. IMPACT: As the first meta-analysis addressing non-pharmacological interventions for lung cancer cough, this study provides evidence supporting their clinical efficacy for improving cough and associated symptoms among patients with lung cancer. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: No patient or Public contribution. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42024588729.
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.