SynthesisSystematic reviews2026
Prevalence and determinants of polypharmacy among cancer patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Systematic reviews, 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
backgroundPolypharmacy (PP) is a rising clinical challenge among patients with a cancer diagnosis. Uncertainty remains regarding its exact burden, exact prevalence estimates, and definitional themes in this vulnerable cohort of patients.
methodsWe searched PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR), and Google Scholar, for studies published between 2000 and 2025 for eligible studies reporting on polypharmacy in cancer patients. These were critically appraised for eligibility and inclusion by two independent reviewers. Using quality and random effect models, pooled estimates of the prevalence of PP, prevalence by type of cancer, and geographical spread were determined. The prevalence rates of potentially inappropriate medications (PIMs) and drug-drug interactions (DDIs) were also estimated. Heterogeneity among the included studies was reported by corresponding I
resultsThis meta-analytical review involved 20 studies comprising (n = 102,100) participants. The overall pooled prevalence of polypharmacy among patients with cancer was 29% (95% CI 10-52%) using the quality effects model, and 58% (95% CI 50-62%) using the random effects model. The overall heterogeneity among the included studies was significant (I
conclusionFrom this meta-analysis of studies with diverse designs, we found a high pooled prevalence of polypharmacy among patient cohorts with cancer, with marked variability across studies. Given this level of heterogeneity, future prospective and systematic studies are needed to better characterize the determinants and consequences of polypharmacy to guide strategies that may improve patient outcomes in these cohorts. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO, Number CRD42024576772.
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.