ArticleiScience2026
Nonpharmacological interventions for frailty and sarcopenia in older adults with gastrointestinal cancers: A Bayesian network meta-analysis.
Article in iScience, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To compare the effects of nonpharmacological interventions on frailty, sarcopenia, and related physical-function outcomes in older adults with gastrointestinal cancers, we conducted a Bayesian random-effects network meta-analysis of 21 randomized controlled trials from 10 countries. Most interventions did not show clear benefits for frailty, sarcopenia, gait speed, Timed Up and Go performance, sit-to-stand performance, skeletal muscle index, or 6-min walk distance. Prehabilitation exercise showed a low-certainty benefit for handgrip strength, whereas enhanced nutritional support and intensive physiotherapy showed limited benefits for patient-reported physical function. However, these findings were based on small, sparsely connected networks, and the certainty of evidence was generally low or very low. No single intervention was consistently effective across outcomes. These results highlight the need for larger, cancer-specific trials using standardized outcome definitions and clearer reporting of intervention intensity, adherence, safety, and feasibility.
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.