ReviewMagyar onkologia2026
[Psychological distress and cancer: facts and myths in the light of scientific evidence].
Review in Magyar onkologia, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Psychological stress and cancer are frequently framed in causal narratives in public discourse; however, current scientific evidence does not support such assumptions. Epidemiological and prospective cohort studies indicate that psychological stress cannot be established as an independent carcinogenic factor, and population-level associations between stress and cancer incidence are consistently absent. Certain psychosocial variables, including maladaptive coping strategies or persistent high-level distress, show moderate and inconsistent associations with clinical outcomes (e.g., survival, recurrence), but these findings are heterogeneous and subject to methodological limitations. Psycho-oncological interventions effectively reduce psychological distress and improve quality of life, while direct causal effects on tumor progression remain unproven. Accordingly, psychosocial care is clinically warranted, contributing to patient well-being and adaptive coping, while clearly distinguishing these effects from biological causal pathways.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42218680PMC13233016What 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.