Trial reportBMC medical education2026
Educational program on cancer cachexia for nurses: a pilot randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in BMC medical education, 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundNurses often face challenges in assessing and managing cancer cachexia owing to the lack of standardized assessment tools and education. We developed the Comprehensive Cancer Cachexia Assessment Tool and an e-learning program to enhance nurses’ knowledge and assessment skills and evaluated their feasibility and acceptability.
methodsWe recruited nurses to care for patients with cancer and randomly assigned them to an intervention or control group. The intervention group completed an e-learning program and tests and questionnaires, including a basic knowledge test, case-based questions, the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation (COM) questionnaires, and daily practice. The control group completed the same test and questionnaires. Data were collected at baseline, immediately after the intervention, and one month later.
resultsOf the 65 facilities invited, 9 agreed to participate (9/65, 13.8%). Thirty-one participants consented to participate in the trial (31/122, 25.4%). Of these, 15 were randomly assigned to the intervention group and 16 to the control group. After randomization, two participants were found not to meet the eligibility criteria. The completion rate was 54.8% (17/31), with 66.7% (10/15) in the intervention group and 43.8% (7/16) in the control group. Participants who completed the program were younger than those who dropped out (completion: 34.0; dropout: 40.3 years) and had fewer years of clinical experience (11.4 vs. 16.6 years). Acceptability of the Comprehensive Cancer Cachexia Assessment Tool was higher in the intervention group for ease of use (intervention: 90.0%; control: 33.3%) and clinical applicability (100% vs. 50.0%). In the intervention group, 80.0% rated the e-learning program as appropriate in difficulty and usability, 80.0% reported that it met their learning needs, and 90.0% would recommend it. Test and questionnaire burden was often rated as excessive in both groups (60.0% vs. 100%). Several participants reported technical issues related to the program. No major issues related to staffing or study coordination were identified.
conclusionsThe educational program was deliverable and acceptable for nurses. However, the trial process was problematic for a future randomized controlled trial. Challenges included revising eligibility screening procedures and criteria, improving recruitment strategies at the facility level, and reducing participant burden associated with data collection.
trial registrationUMIN Clinical Trials Registry (UMIN-CTR), UMIN000052812. Registered on 27 November 2023.
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.