SynthesisSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2026
Time toxicity in cancer care: a systematic review of definitions and measurement methods.
Synthesis in Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTime toxicity has emerged as an important concept in oncology, reflecting the burden of time patients spend receiving care. However there is no consensus on how time toxicity is defined or measured. We conducted a systematic review to characterise the definitions and measurement methods.
methodsMEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library were searched from inception to 10th March 2026. Studies were included if they involved cancer patients and reported a definable measure of time-related burden associated with care. Data were extracted on study characteristics, sample size, data sources, and definitions of time toxicity.
resultsFifty-six studies were included. Most studies were observational (n = 45, 80.4%) and conducted in high-income countries, predominantly the United States (n = 29, 51.8%). Time toxicity was most commonly defined using direct healthcare time measures (n = 31, 55.4%), representing days involving healthcare encounters such as clinic visits, treatment sessions, hospitalisations, and emergency department visits. Time away from healthcare measures, including days alive and out of hospital or days at home, were used in 20 studies (35.7%). Healthcare process time incorporating non-clinical and logistical aspects of care were used in 5 studies (8.9%). No studies used patient-reported definitions of time toxicity. Most measures were derived from administrative, electronic health record, or clinical trial data, capturing healthcare utilisation but not patients' perceived burden or value of healthcare-related time.
conclusionCurrent definitions of time toxicity in cancer care are heterogeneous and predominantly system-derived, with minimal incorporation of patient-centred perspectives. We propose an empirical framework comprising three objective measurement domains: direct healthcare time, time away from healthcare, and healthcare process time-with patient-reported experience incorporated as an evidence-informed extension.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42809115What 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.