SynthesisFrontiers in oncology2026
Prediction models for fear of cancer recurrence in adults with cancer: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Frontiers in oncology, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Numerous studies have developed or validated prediction models to estimate the likelihood of Fear of Cancer Recurrence (FCR) among patients with cancer. The quality of these models and evaluations of their applicability to clinical practice and future research remain unclear. This study systematically evaluated the risk of bias and applicability of prediction models for FCR in oncology populations. Methods: We searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), China Science and Technology Journal Database (VIP), Wanfang Data, and Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM) from inception to August 1, 2025. Two reviewers independently screened studies and extracted data. We used the Prediction model Risk Of Bias ASsessment Tool (PROBAST) checklist to assess risk of bias and applicability. Results: We identified 702 records and ultimately included 7 studies encompassing 18 models. Most were published between 2022 and 2025. Sample sizes in the included studies ranged from 200 to 918, and the reported discrimination in model development cohorts ranged from 0.660 to 0.996. Applicability was judged to be good across all studies. However, all studies exhibited a high risk of bias, mainly due to suboptimal data sources, inadequate handling of predictors and missing data, and limited model validation. Among the included studies, the prevalence of FCR ranged from 47.7% to 63.4%. The most frequent predictors were age, social support, household/per-capita monthly income, occupation or employment status, and fatigue. Conclusions: Prediction modeling for FCR in patients with cancer remains in an early stage, with both shared and heterogeneous predictors. Although overall model performance appears acceptable, most studies have methodological shortcomings, and few models have been validated. Future studies should design, conduct, and report models in accordance with the Transparent Reporting of a multivariable prediction model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis (TRIPOD) guideline. In addition, studies with larger sample sizes and multicenter external validation are needed to improve model robustness.
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.