SynthesisFrontiers in public health2026
Efficacy of traditional Chinese medicine nursing for lung cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis using the Donabedian model to investigate heterogeneity.
Synthesis in Frontiers in public health, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Lung cancer patients frequently experience a reduced quality of life and psychological distress during treatment. Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) nursing shows promise, but substantial heterogeneity in the evidence base limits clinical interpretation. Methods: A comprehensive literature search identified 15 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving 1,135 participants. A meta-analysis was conducted using RevMan 5.4 and Stata 17. Following the Donabedian framework, data were categorized into structure, process, and outcome dimensions to explore sources of heterogeneity. Results: In the primary analysis, TCM nursing significantly improved all outcomes. For the Karnofsky Performance Status (KPS) score, the primary random-effects analysis showed a significant improvement (MD = 7.18, 95%CI 4.29-10.08). The sensitivity analysis excluding one outlier yielded a consistent effect (MD = 8.71, 95%CI 6.49-10.92). For the Self-Rating Depression Scale (SDS) score, the primary analysis showed a significant reduction (MD = -5.94, 95%CI -6.96 to -4.92). The sensitivity analysis excluding one outlier confirmed the robustness of these results (MD = -5.74, 95%CI -6.39 to -5.09). For the remaining outcomes with low heterogeneity, primary fixed-effects analysis revealed that TCM nursing significantly reduced Self-Rating Anxiety Scale (SAS) scores (MD = -4.65, 95%CI -5.28 to -4.03) and Visual Analog Scale (VAS) pain scores (MD = -1.46, 95%CI -1.56 to -1.36). Additionally, TCM nursing lowered the incidence of gastrointestinal reactions (RR = 0.19, 95%CI 0.06-0.58) and improved nursing compliance (RR = 1.24, 95%CI 1.10-1.39) (all Conclusion: TCM nursing significantly improves multidimensional outcomes for lung cancer patients. The Donabedian model effectively identifies sources of process-related heterogeneity and highlights critical structural reporting gaps that require attention in future research. Systematic review registered: PROSPERO, ID https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420261339100.
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.