4.0 Review

The Correlation Between Radiotherapy and Patients' Fear of Cancer Recurrence A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

期刊

JOURNAL OF HOSPICE & PALLIATIVE NURSING
卷 24, 期 3, 页码 186-198

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1097/NJH.0000000000000848

关键词

fear of cancer recurrence; meta-analysis; radiotherapy

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The purpose of this study was to explore the correlation between patients' fear of cancer recurrence and radiotherapy. The results showed a weak positive correlation between patients' fear of cancer recurrence and radiotherapy. Subgroup analysis based on cancer site revealed that breast cancer, mixed-type, and other-type groups had a positive correlation with radiotherapy.
The purpose of this review was to explore the correlation between patients' fear of cancer recurrence (KR) and radiotherapy. National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang Database, China Science and Technology Journal Database, SinoMed, PubMed, Web of Science, EBSCO-CINAHL, Cochrane Library, and Ovid Embase were searched to identify relevant studies. Thirty-five eligible studies were included in the systematic review, and 22 of them were included in further meta-analysis. The results of the meta-analysis showed that the level of patients' FCR was positively correlated with radiotherapy, but the correlation was weak (overall r = 0.075; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.046-0.103; P = .000). In terms of subgroup analysis based on cancer site (breast cancer vs other types of cancer), the breast cancer group (r = 0.086; 95% CI, 0.027-0.143; P= .004), the mixed-type group (r = 0.073; 95% CI, 0.033-0.112; P = .000), and the other-type group (r = 0.071; 95% CI, 0.015-0.126; P = .013) have a positive correlation with radiotherapy. Patients' FCR positively correlated with the receipt of radiotherapy. However, because of the variability among the studies, the results have limitations. Therefore, longitudinal studies are needed to verify the trajectory of FCR over radiation therapy.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.0
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据