SynthesisJournal of clinical nursing2026
Diagnostic Prediction Models for Depression in Patients With Breast Cancer: A Systematic Review.
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
Abstract
aimTo systematically review the evidence on diagnostic prediction models for depression in patients with breast cancer.
designSystematic review. DATA SOURCES: Ten databases were searched from inception to 22 August 2025, with an updated search on 17 December 2025, to identify original studies developing and/or validating diagnostic prediction models for depression in patients with breast cancer.
methodsData were extracted using the Critical Appraisal and Data Extraction for Systematic Reviews of Prediction Modelling Studies (CHARMS) framework. Two reviewers independently assessed risk of bias and applicability of included studies using the Prediction Model Risk of Bias Assessment Tool (PROBAST).
resultsEleven studies were included. Reported area under the curve (AUC) values ranged from 0.784 to 0.890. All included studies were judged to be at high risk of bias, and seven raised high concerns regarding applicability. There was substantial heterogeneity in predictor selection across studies, with age, income level and family support being the most frequently reported predictors.
conclusionAlthough preliminary research on diagnostic prediction models for depression in patients with breast cancer has been undertaken, their methodological quality remains weak. Reporting of external validation and calibration assessment was limited. Current evidence is therefore insufficient to support their routine use in nursing practice. Future research should standardise model development and validation and strengthen the evaluation of model performance. IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PROFESSION AND/OR PATIENT CARE: This review suggests that existing diagnostic prediction models for depression in patients with breast cancer are not yet sufficiently robust for routine nursing use, but may provide a reference for future nursing screening research and the optimisation of related tools. IMPACT: This review synthesises the available evidence on diagnostic prediction models for depression in patients with breast cancer and provides a basis for future model development, validation and optimisation. REPORTING
methodThis review was reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement and the Transparent Reporting of a Multivariable Prediction Model for Individual Prognosis or Diagnosis: Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (TRIPOD-SRMA) checklist. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: No patient or public contribution.
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.