ArticleFrontiers in medicine2026
Screening tools to assess cancer-related financial toxicity: a scoping systematic review and thematic analysis protocol.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 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
Introduction: Financial toxicity, stemming from high cancer treatment costs, compromises adherence, escalates caregiver burden, and induces psychological distress, ultimately hindering patient outcomes and exacerbating health inequities. Despite the development of various assessment tools, a consensus on how to uniformly measure financial toxicity remains elusive. This study aims to systematically analyze the similarities and differences among existing global financial toxicity assessment tools, identify key themes, and grade the evidence, thereby providing a theoretical foundation for developing a financial toxicity assessment tool tailored to the Chinese context. Methods: This review will conduct a comprehensive search of databases, including The Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, CNKI, Wanfang, VIP, CBM, grey literature, and health websites from various countries, to identify all tools assessing financial toxicity in cancer patients and their families. The search will cover the period from January 1, 2012, to January 1, 2026. Two reviewers will independently assess the included literature. In cases of disagreement, a third reviewer will adjudicate. Basic characteristics to be described will include the publishing institution, year of publication, country of origin, and applicable drug categories of the assessment tools. Key elements to be extracted and described will focus on dimensions of financial toxicity assessment, sources/evidence grading, and methodological processes, including methods and techniques. Subsequently, the thematic analysis method was adopted to integrate the evidence, extract key themes, and focus on the applicability of existing tools in the Chinese context. The integrated evidence will be evaluated using the GRADE-CERQual evidence quality assessment system to determine the credibility of the evidence for the applicability of existing tools. Ethics and dissemination: This study does not involve human or animal subjects, and ethical approval is not required. The results will be disseminated at various presentations and feedback sessions, in conference abstracts and manuscripts that will be submitted to peer-reviewed journals. Trial registration: PROSPERO registration number CRD42024546186.
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.