ReviewCancers2026
Mapping Integrative Decision-Making Frameworks in Advanced Cancer Care: A Scoping Review of Diagnostic, Supportive-Care, and Therapeutic Integration.
Review in Cancers, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/
objectivesDecision-making in advanced cancer care is intertwined with diagnostic profiling, prognostic communication, supportive care, and anticancer treatment selection. An author-developed D-S-T × B/C/E conceptual mapping scaffold-three decision/action domains (Diagnosis, Supportive care, Therapy) and three evaluative dimensions (Biological, Clinical, Existential)-was used to organise the literature, to identify coverage gaps and recurring framework categories, and, as a secondary conceptual synthesis objective, to derive a candidate integrative framework.
methodsThe review was conducted according to the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology for scoping reviews, pre-registered on OSF, and reported per PRISMA-ScR. PubMed was searched on 21 June 2026, and the final evidence set was derived solely from this search. Eligible records concerning adults with advanced cancer were dual-screened and charted using a structured form.
resultsEighty-two records (2010-2026) were included. Under the strict D-S-T × B/C/E matrix, Supportive care showed the highest joint coverage, particularly S × C (59/82, 72.0%), whereas D × B and D × E were the least represented cells (13/82 each, 15.9%). Eight recurring framework categories were inductively derived from the charted framework descriptors, led by early integrated palliative care (30/82) and prognosis-informed shared decision-making (27/82). Twenty-two records met an emergence-candidate screen defined at the synthesis stage, of which three received the maximum cross-axis coupling score of 6/6 from both reviewers.
conclusionsThe advanced-cancer decision-framework literature clusters around a small number of architectures with uneven D-S-T × B/C/E coverage. Diagnosis-centred frameworks coupled with biological or existential dimensions were relatively under-represented within our mapping and represent priority targets for future primary research; the proposed Adaptive framework provides one structure in which this research could be conducted.
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.