ArticleBMC nursing2026
Nurse-led intervention for improving quality of life of breast cancer patients: systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in BMC nursing, 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
backgroundBreast cancer treatment often impacts patients' quality of life (QoL), with symptoms ranging from fatigue and pain to emotional and functional disturbances. Nurse-led interventions have been proposed to mitigate these effects, yet comprehensive evidence of their efficacy remains varied. Hence, this meta-analysis evaluated the effectiveness of nurse-led interventions on various QoL domains among breast cancer patients.
methodsSearch strategy included databases such as PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, and Google Scholar. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed to estimate standardized mean difference (SMD); heterogeneity was quantified using I² and τ² with 95% confidence intervals, and small-study effects were explored using funnel plots and Egger's test. Study quality/risk of bias was appraised with RoB 2 for randomized trials. All analyses were conducted in Stata (version 14.2, StataCorp).
resultsInterventions showed modest, non-significant improvement in global health status (SMD = 0.265; 95%CI: -0.019 to 0.549) and functional status (SMD = 0.241; 95%CI: -0.009 to 0.491). Significant reduction was noted in fatigue (SMD=-1.328; 95%CI: -2.550 to -0.107). Other outcomes like symptom scores, role functioning, emotional functioning, pain, dyspnea, and nausea/vomiting demonstrated non-significant trends towards improvement. High heterogeneity was observed across most outcomes, indicating variability in intervention effects.
conclusionNurse-led interventions may offer marginal improvements in certain QoL domains for breast cancer patients, particularly in reducing fatigue. The variability in efficacy across different outcomes suggests need for personalized approaches and further research to optimize these interventions for broader application in oncology care settings. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.
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.