SynthesisFrontiers in psychiatry2026
Efficacy of psychological interventions versus standard care for cancer pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in psychiatry, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Cancer-related pain is frequently accompanied by psychological distress, which may worsen symptom burden and impair quality of life. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the efficacy of psychological interventions versus standard care for pain intensity, depressive symptoms, and anxiety in adults with cancer-related pain. Methods: This systematic review and meta-analysis followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidance. PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library were searched from inception to January 5, 2026. Randomized controlled trials comparing structured psychological interventions with routine or standard care were included. The primary outcome was pain intensity measured by the Visual Analog Scale (VAS). Secondary outcomes were depressive symptoms measured by the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) and anxiety measured by the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI). Mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were pooled. Results: Fourteen randomized controlled trials involving 2, 070 participants were included. Psychological interventions significantly reduced VAS scores compared with standard care (MD = -0.91, 95% CI -1.38 to -0.44; P = 0.0001; I²=97%). Significant improvements were also observed in BDI scores across 10 trials (MD = -4.22, 95% CI -5.50 to -2.93; P<0.00001; I²=78%) and STAI scores across 5 trials (MD = -1.74, 95% CI -2.96 to -0.52; P = 0.005; I²=0%). Subgroup analyses by cancer type and mean age partly explained heterogeneity in VAS outcomes. Egger's tests showed no significant funnel plot asymmetry for VAS (P = 0.857) or BDI (P = 0.452). Adverse events and follow-up durations were inconsistently reported and could not be quantitatively synthesized. The certainty of evidence was moderate for all outcomes. Conclusion: Psychological interventions may reduce pain intensity, depressive symptoms, and anxiety in adults with cancer-related pain. However, substantial heterogeneity, inconsistent follow-up reporting, and limited safety data warrant cautious interpretation and further standardized randomized trials.
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.