Observational studyBMC psychology2026
What are the predominant factors predicting trend of post-traumatic growth for patients after bone tumour surgery? A longitudinal observational study.
Observational study in BMC psychology, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo investigate the predominant factors predicting trend of post-traumatic growth for patients after bone tumour surgery.
methodsWe conducted a longitudinal observational study with convenience sampling. Follow-up examinations were conducted every two weeks over a total follow-up period of one month. Post-traumatic growth (PTG) levels were measured using the Chinese version of the Post-Traumatic Growth Inventory (PTGI-C). Latent Category Growth Model (LCGM) was applied to explore the latent trajectory categories of PTG. Univariate and multivariate analyses were conducted to explore the predictors and influencing factors for patients with different trajectories.
resultsA total of 153 patients were included in the study, and 141 patients completed the follow-up. The means of PTGI-C at different monitoring time were 41.24 ± 21.94, 44.56 ± 23.33, and 40.69 ± 22.63, respectively. Repeated measures analysis of variance with univariate revealed statistically significant differences in PTGI-C across different time (F = 3.372, P = 0.02). Patients were categorized into two latent subgroups: an increasing trend group (intercept = 44.276, slope = 5.152, P < 0.001) and a decreasing trend group (intercept = 35.164, slope = - 4.718, P < 0.001) based on two-category LCGM model. Low levels of post traumatic stress (vs. high levels) were associated with increased odds of decreasing PTG trajectory (OR 2.67, P = 0.015), indicating a risk factor. Unmarried status (vs. married) and giant cell tumour (OR = 0.223, P = 0.047), fibrogenic tumours (OR = 0.127, P = 0.007), cartilaginous origin tumour (OR = 0.194, P = 0.034), and other tumours (OR = 0.169, P = 0.023, vs. osteosarcoma) were protective factors.
conclusionThe classification of PTG change trajectory suggested different positive psychological processes in patients with bone tumours. Identifying the influencing factors of patients in the PTG decline trend group can guide nurses to provide effective intervention in time. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: ChiCTR2300074170 (Registration Date: 1st August 2023).
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.