SynthesisFrontiers in oncology2025
The efficacy of non-pharmacological interventions for treating constipation symptoms in lung cancer patients: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in oncology, 2025. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This study aims to comprehensively evaluate the efficacy of different non-pharmacological interventions in treating constipation symptoms in lung cancer patients through a network meta-analysis, providing evidence-based support for personalized treatment decisions in clinical practice. Methods: We retrieved randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from well-known databases and compared the efficacy of non-pharmacological interventions with traditional treatments or placebos in improving constipation symptoms in lung cancer patients. The search was conducted through January 2025. Two researchers independently screened the literature, extracted data, and assessed the quality of the studies using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Traditional meta-analysis was performed using Stata 16.0 software. Network meta-analysis (NMA) was conducted using RStudio software to integrate the data and create a network diagram to display the comparisons between non-pharmacological interventions. The credibility of the evidence was assessed using the Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis (CINeMA) tool. Results: A total of 33 studies involving 3,471 participants were included in this study. The traditional meta-analysis revealed that non-pharmacological interventions effectively reduced the incidence of constipation and improved constipation symptom management in lung cancer patients during treatment. Additionally, these interventions positively impacted the time to first bowel movement and reduced negative emotions (such as anxiety) in hospitalized lung cancer patients with constipation. The network meta-analysis (31 studies, 3,287 participants) indicated that acupoint stimulation was the most effective non-pharmacological intervention for reducing constipation incidence in lung cancer patients during treatment. The combined use of two types of acupoint patches showed optimal efficacy in improving constipation symptoms. However, for overall therapeutic effectiveness, the combination of acupoint patch therapy and acupoint massage most effectively reduced constipation incidence and improved overall constipation symptom management in lung cancer patients during treatment. Conclusion: The combination of acupoint patch therapy and acupoint massage is recommended as the preferred clinical intervention for treating constipation symptoms in lung cancer patients. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier CRD42025631567.
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.