SynthesisSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2026
Comparative efficacy of traditional Chinese medicine-based non-pharmacological therapies for managing cancer-related fatigue in lung cancer patients: a systematic review and network 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFatigue is a prevalent symptom in lung cancer patients and adversely affects their health and quality of life. While some evidence suggests that Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM)-based non-pharmacological therapies can effectively alleviate cancer-related fatigue (CRF), it remains unclear which therapy is most effective for managing CRF in this population.
objectiveTo compare the effects of different TCM-based non-pharmacological therapies on reducing CRF in lung cancer patients.
methodsWe searched eight databases from their inception to 24 November 2025. Following literature screening, the quality of the included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tool. A network meta-analysis was conducted to evaluate the relative efficacy of the TCM-based non-pharmacological therapies. Statistical analyses were performed using STATA 18.0 software.
resultsA total of 32 RCTs involving eight TCM-based non-pharmacological therapies were included. The network meta-analysis results indicated that moxibustion (SMD = -2.56, 95% CI = -3.60 to -1.51) and auricular acupressure (SMD = -1.82, 95% CI = -3.61 to -0.03) were significantly more effective than usual care in improving CRF. Furthermore, moxibustion showed a significant advantage over qigong (SMD = -2.12, 95% CI = -3.58 to -0.65).
conclusionCurrent evidence shows that moxibustion and auricular acupressure may be the most promising TCM-based non-pharmacological therapies for alleviating CRF in lung cancer patients, whereas qigong appears less effective. However, given the considerable risk of bias across the included studies, these conclusions require further validation through more rigorously designed, high-quality clinical trials.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42758224What 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.