SynthesisThe clinical respiratory journal2025
Comparison of Single Versus Multiple Nonpharmacological Interventions for the Management of Lung Cancer-Related Fatigue: A Systematic Review.
Synthesis in The clinical respiratory journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Comparison of Single Versus Multiple Nonpharmacological Interventions for the Management of Lung Cancer-Related Fatigue: A Systematic Review.The clinical respiratory journal · 2025Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLung cancer is one of the common cancers globally. One of the adverse symptoms of lung cancer and its treatment is fatigue. Pharmacological interventions have not shown efficacy on cancer-related fatigue, and investigations on nonpharmacological interventions may be useful. This systematic review aims to evaluate the efficacy of nonpharmacological interventions on managing fatigue and quality of life outcomes among people undergoing treatment for lung cancer and evaluate if treatment efficacy differed between single and multimodal interventions.
methodsRelevant literature published in MEDLINE, Scopus, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, and ProQuest from January 2003 to January 2023 was included. Included studies must have: participants over 16 years of age receiving treatment such as chemotherapy, radiotherapy, and/or surgery, cancer-related fatigue (CRF) as an outcome, and must be randomized controlled trials. Two reviewers independently extracted data from eligible articles, and data analysis was performed using R 4.1.0 software.
resultsTotal of 14 randomized controlled trials were included and categorized into four groups: physical activities, traditional Chinese medicine (TCM), education, and dietary counselling. Our extensive search did not find any multimodal studies related to CRF in patients with lung cancer. Pooled results of this systematic review found that TCM and education interventions have a significant positive impact on fatigue in patients with lung cancer. Physical activity and dietary counselling were not effective in managing fatigue. None of the reported nonpharmacological interventions in this review significantly impact QoL.
conclusionsThis review identified that TCM and educational programs improved CRF in patients with lung cancer. However, physical activities and dietary counselling did not show any improvements in fatigue for patients undergoing lung cancer treatment. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration ID: CRD42023407326.
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.