SynthesisSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2026
Application of patient navigation programs across the entire continuum of breast cancer care: a GRADE-assessed systematic review with meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 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
backgroundPatient navigation programs (PNPs) have been increasingly applied in breast cancer (BC) care of underserved clients, as they can significantly assist them with coordinating services across the care continuum. However, existing evidence has produced inconclusive findings regarding the empirical adequacy of BC-related caring interventions developed from PNPs. Hence, the aim of the present systematic review and meta-analysis was to clarify the benefits of PNPs across all phases of the BC care continuum. Primary outcomes comprised care-continuum indicators extracted predominantly from medical records, while secondary outcomes included client-reported healthcare measures.
methodsFive electronic data sources were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that investigated the effectiveness of PNPs across the BC care continuum from 1995 to January 10, 2025, with no restrictions on clients' sociodemographic characteristics. A random-effects model, using both the DerSimonian-Laird (DL) method and the Hartung-Knapp (HK) adjustment, was applied to estimate standardized mean differences (SMDs) for continuous outcomes and odds ratios (ORs) for dichotomous outcomes, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
resultsThirty-seven RCTs met the inclusion criteria, including four cluster RCTs and 33 individual RCTs. Quantitative synthesis was not feasible for time-to-resolution, adherence to adjuvant or post-treatment follow-up care, timely treatment initiation, treatment completion, satisfaction with care, or psychological distress; therefore, the effectiveness of PNPs for these outcomes remains uncertain. Meta-analyses of individual RCTs, all conducted using a DL random-effects model, indicated that PNPs significantly improved diagnostic follow-up compliance (OR, 2.42; 95% CI, 1.64, 3.59; P < 0.001); screening mammogram adherence (OR, 2.18; 95% CI, 1.71, 2.77; P < 0.001); and timely diagnostic resolution (OR, 2.51; 95% CI, 1.21, 5.24; P = 0.014). Using the same DL model, PNPs also improved quality of life (SMD, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.09, 0.79; P = 0.014) and reduced anxiety (SMD, -0.94; 95% CI, -1.66, -0.22; P = 0.010). However, no statistically significant effects were observed under the DL model for depression (SMD, -0.34; 95% CI, -0.71, 0.04; P = 0.076) or BC knowledge (SMD, 0.27; 95% CI, -0.19, 0.73; P = 0.247). Substantial heterogeneity was observed across most pooled outcomes (I
conclusionAlthough initial analyses suggested that PNPs may improve several BC-related outcomes, these observed benefits were reduced in magnitude and, in some cases, no longer statistically significant after applying more conservative adjustment methods. Moreover, substantial heterogeneity across studies and the overall low methodological quality limit the certainty of the evidence. Therefore, the current findings should be interpreted cautiously, and further high-quality RCTs are needed to draw more definitive conclusions about the effectiveness of PNPs across the BC care continuum. PROSPERO REGISTRATION: CRD42023487495.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42525303What 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.