Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42460826›Full record

ArticlePsycho-oncology2026

Psychological Impact of Spine Sarcoma on Wellbeing.

V Williamson, G Mawhinney, D Cimatu, T Land, J J Reynolds

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Psycho-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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

V WilliamsonInstitute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK.
G MawhinneyOxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK.
D CimatuDepartment of Immunology and Inflammatory Diseases, University of Oxford, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, UK.
T LandOxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7703-1361
J J ReynoldsOxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK.

Funding

Bone Cancer Research Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSpine sarcomas are rare but debilitating cancers requiring extensive treatment with high morbidity. While physical outcomes are well studied, the psychological impact and support needs of patients remain poorly understood. The aim of this study was to qualitatively explore patient experiences of spine sarcoma on wellbeing and their perceived support needs.

methodSixteen adult patients diagnosed or treated for spinal sarcoma at Oxford University Hospitals completed semi-structured qualitative interviews. Data were analysed using thematic analysis.

resultsPatients frequently experienced significant delays to diagnosis, often enduring severe, persistent pain and having requests for further diagnostic tests declined by healthcare providers. After diagnosis, many underwent extensive and invasive treatment, with prolonged hospital stays and reliance on considerable caregiving support after discharge. Emotional challenges were common, including anger, anxiety and social withdrawal, often compounded by chronic pain and reduced mobility. Patients also described unmet rehabilitative care needs, including fragmented aftercare and limited psychological provision.

conclusionsFindings underscore the urgent need for earlier diagnosis, enhanced clinical training, integrated psychosocial support, and coordinated long-term survivorship care in spinal sarcoma.

Indexed as

Quality of LifeSarcomaSpinal NeoplasmsAdultAgedAnxietyDelayed DiagnosisFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPsychological Well-BeingQualitative ResearchSocial SupportTreatment Delaycancermental healthsarcomaspinewellbeing

Identifiers

PMID42460826
PMCPMC13373986

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.