ReviewDiseases (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Efficacy of Phytotherapy for Cancer-Related Fatigue: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.
Review in Diseases (Basel, Switzerland), 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCancer-related fatigue (CRF) is one of the most common and burdensome symptoms faced by patients with cancer, yet effective drug-based treatments remain limited. In recent years, phytotherapeutic agents have drawn attention as complementary options, supported by plausible anti-inflammatory, antioxidant, and immunomodulatory mechanisms.
methodsWe performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to quantitatively synthesize randomized controlled trial evidence on the efficacy of phytotherapeutic interventions for cancer-related fatigue and to assess the certainty of evidence. Databases were searched from inception, with the final search update completed in October 2025. Eligible studies included adults with CRF and compared herbal interventions with placebo controls. Standardized mean differences (SMDs) were pooled using a DerSimonian-Laird random-effects model. We also evaluated risk of bias (RoB 2), publication bias, and certainty of evidence using GRADE. This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA 2020 guidelines.
resultsFourteen trials were included, studying agents such as
conclusionsCurrent evidence does not firmly support phytotherapeutic agents as effective treatments for CRF, hindered largely by methodological weaknesses, heterogeneous interventions, and imprecise effect estimates. Even so, the biological rationale and the variability in clinical responses point toward an opportunity for the emerging field of precision herbal oncology. Well-designed, multicenter trials are essential to determine whether phytotherapy can meaningfully contribute to CRF management.
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.