SynthesisFrontiers in psychology2026
Prognostic understanding interventions in patients with advanced cancer: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Frontiers in psychology, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Most patients with advanced cancer have an inadequate understanding of their prognosis, and there are few interventions aimed at enhancing their prognostic understanding, with the effectiveness of these interventions remaining controversial. Aim: The purpose of this systematic review is to identify interventions that have been effective at improving prognostic understanding in patients with advanced cancer. Methods: A systematic review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. All relevant peer-reviewed articles published from 1990 and February 2025 were identified through an electronic search of four databases: Embase, Scopus, Pubmed, and Web of Science. Risk of bias was independently assessed by two reviewers using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool (CRBT) and Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool for Non-randomized Studies (RoBANS). Following this, a narrative synthesis of the findings was completed. Publications reporting on interventions delivered to patients with advanced cancer that included quantitative data on prognostic understanding were systematically reviewed. Results: Thirteen unique intervention studies involving 1,780 cancer patients were identified. Interventions tested included decision aids (DAs), prognostic discussions, advance care planning (ACP), and palliative care. Seven studies utilized a randomized controlled design. Five of these investigated DAs-based interventions and four examined prognostic discussions interventions, with the greatest empirical support found for these intervention types. However, most interventions fail to improve the prognostic understanding of patients with advanced cancer. Conclusion: Further research is needed to investigate the effects of interventions on prognostic understanding among patients with advanced cancers, using randomized controlled designs and adequately powered samples. This would enable the implementation of evidence-based recommendations for the most appropriate interventions in clinical practice.
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.