ReviewCancer medicine2024
Anticancer restrictive diets and the risk of psychological distress: Review and perspectives.
Review in Cancer medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Digital Nutritional Care in Oncology: Opportunities to Enhance Quality of Life and Support Patient-Centered Care.Cancers · 2026Review
- Nutrition literacy and dietary self-management in breast and gynecologic cancer survivorship.Frontiers in public health · 2026Review
- Review
- Nutritional care in metastatic RCC: patient experiences and reported unaddressed needs.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2025Article
- Use of membrane lipidome, body weight, and composition in stratification of early breast cancer patients.NPJ breast cancer · 2025Article
- Nutritional status, immunonutrition, and gut microbiome: a coming of age for immunotherapy?Frontiers in immunology · 2025Review
- Anticancer restrictive diets and the risk of psychological distress: Review and perspectives.Cancer medicine · 2024Review
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
Abstract
introductionThe most studied anticancer restrictive diets include fasting, fasting-mimicking diets (FMDs) and ketogenic diets (KDs). Besides the current lack of established clinical benefit and the significant risk of malnutrition and micronutrient deficiencies, dietary restrictions in cancer patients might have relevant psychological effects. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe reviewed the randomized and non-randomized controlled clinical trials (CCTs) reporting data on the psychological impact of fasting, FMDs and KDs in cancer patients. We excluded trials on restrictive diets performed for weight reduction in obese or overweight patients, studies on dietary restrictions lasting less than 24 h, and studies on fasting related to cultural or religious beliefs.
resultsThree CCTs on fasting or FMDs and eight CCTs on KDs in cancer patients were included. In terms of diet-related distress, emotional, social, and family well-being, none of these studies showed a detrimental impact of fasting, FMDs and KDs. However, clinical trials specifically assessing the psychological aspects in the long term are lacking. CONCLUSIONS AND PERSPECTIVES: In the absence of a conclusive evidence on the clinical benefits of restrictive diets, which carry significant risks especially if unsupervised, further studies are needed to clarify their psychological impact in cancer patients. Multidisciplinary approaches including psychological evaluations should be used to ameliorate patient selection for clinical trials, identify early distress symptoms, and increase patient compliance to dietary recommendations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.