ArticleJournal of cancer research and clinical oncology2026
Comment on: "The status and determinants of demoralization in patients with colorectal cancer: a cross-sectional study in China".
Article in Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Zhou et al. investigated demoralization syndrome (DS) among Chinese patients with colorectal cancer and identified cancer metastasis, anxiety, and depression as factors independently associated with greater DS severity. Their study provides valuable evidence for psychological screening and supportive care in this population. In this comment, we highlight two analytical considerations that may further strengthen the interpretation of their findings. First, although social support was associated with DS severity in univariate analysis, the loss of statistical significance after multivariable adjustment should not be interpreted as evidence of irrelevance; rather, social support may influence DS indirectly through anxiety, depression, or disease burden. Mediation or path analysis may therefore better reflect the underlying causal structure. Second, dichotomizing the continuous DS-II score into mild versus moderate-to-severe categories may reduce statistical power and obscure clinically meaningful variation. Analyzing the DS-II score as a continuous or ordinal outcome could provide a more informative assessment of the determinants of DS.
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.