Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 37

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 15 of the 15 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Effects of acupuncture versus cognitive behavioral therapy on cognitive function in cancer survivors with insomnia: A secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial

Liou, Kevin T., Root, James C., Garland, Sheila N., Green, Jamie, Li, Yuelin, Li, Q. Susan, Kantoff, Philip W., Ahles, Tim A., Mao, Jun J.·2020·Cancer

Abstract

Background: Cancer‐related cognitive impairment is a prevalent, disruptive condition potentially exacerbated by sleep disturbances. The current study was performed to evaluate the effects of acupuncture versus cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia (CBT‐I) on objective and subjective cognitive function in cancer survivors with insomnia. Methods: Using data from a randomized clinical trial (160 survivors) that compared acupuncture versus CBT‐I for insomnia occurring in cancer survivors, the authors analyzed cognitive outcomes and their relationship to insomnia symptoms. Analysis was limited to 99 patients who reported baseline cognitive difficulties. Interventions were delivered over 8 weeks. Objective attention, learning, and memory were evaluated using the Buschke Selective Reminding Test. Subjective cognitive function was assessed using the Brown Attention‐Deficit Disorder Scales. Insomnia symptoms were assessed using the Insomnia Severity Index. All outcomes were collected at baseline, week 8, and week 20. Results: From baseline to week 8, acupuncture produced statistically significant within‐group improvements in objective attention (Cohen D , 0.29), learning (Cohen D , 0.31), and memory (Cohen D , 0.33) that persisted to week 20 (all P < .05), whereas CBT‐I produced a statistically significant within‐group improvement in objective attention from baseline to week 20 (Cohen D , 0.50; P < .05); between‐group differences were not statistically significant. Both interventions produced statistically significant within‐group improvements in subjective cognitive function at weeks 8 and 20 compared with baseline (all P < .001); between‐group differences were not statistically significant. In the acupuncture group, patients with clinically meaningful responses with regard to insomnia symptoms demonstrated a significantly greater improvement in subjective cognitive function compared with those without clinically meaningful insomnia responses ( P = .006). Conclusions: Among cancer survivors with insomnia, both acupuncture and CBT‐I produced significant improvements in objective and subjective cognitive function. However, the effect sizes varied and only survivors in the acupuncture group demonstrated a significant relationship between cognitive and sleep outcomes. These preliminary findings warrant further investigation to guide the personalized management of patients with cancer‐related cognitive impairment.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/cncr.32847

Cites

15 of 15 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 15 references

Research works printed but not linked: 96

  1. 10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-050817-084903 · DOI · Paper page
  2. 10.1371/journal.pone.0108002 · DOI
  3. 10.1016/j.ejon.2012.06.002 · DOI
  4. 10.1200/JCO.2016.68.5826 · DOI
  5. 10.1200/JCO.18.00140 · DOI
  6. 10.1200/JCO.2011.39.5640 · DOI
  7. 10.1002/cncr.29393 · DOI
  8. 10.1200/JCO.2014.56.1662 · DOI
  9. 10.1002/cncr.23658 · DOI
  10. 10.1007/s00520-014-2285-1 · DOI
  11. 10.1200/JCO.2015.63.0905 · DOI · Paper page
  12. 10.1007/s00520-016-3480-z · DOI
  13. 10.1016/j.ygyno.2011.11.005 · DOI
  14. 10.3109/09540261.2013.864260 · DOI · Paper page
  15. 10.1200/JCO.2018.36.15_suppl.10009 · DOI
  16. 10.1002/pon.4564 · DOI
  17. 10.1016/j.soncn.2013.08.003 · DOI
  18. 10.1016/j.smrv.2011.03.008 · DOI
  19. 10.1016/j.sleep.2015.08.021 · DOI · Paper page
  20. 10.1093/sleep/26.2.117 · DOI · Paper page
  21. 10.1038/nrn2762 · DOI · Paper page
  22. 10.1080/15402002.2012.672940 · DOI
  23. 10.1002/pon.3626 · DOI
  24. 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2014.08.012 · DOI
  25. 10.1093/jncics/pkz041 · DOI · Paper page
  26. 10.1007/s00520-015-2927-y · DOI
  27. 10.1002/pon.4571 · DOI
  28. 10.2147/NSS.S18895 · DOI
  29. 10.1016/j.smrv.2017.07.001 · DOI
  30. 10.1093/sleep/zsx153 · DOI
  31. 10.1016/j.sleep.2017.02.012 · DOI
  32. 10.1177/1534735416664172 · DOI
  33. 10.1093/jnci/djz050 · DOI
  34. 10.12659/MSM.909712 · DOI
  35. 10.1016/S1389-9457(00)00065-4 · DOI · Paper page
  36. American Psychiatric Association, 2017, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition: DSM‐5
  37. 10.1016/j.cct.2016.02.010 · DOI
  38. 10.1016/j.pop.2009.09.010 · DOI
  39. 10.1136/aim.22.3.122 · DOI
  40. 10.1093/jncimonographs/lgx004 · DOI
  41. 10.1186/s13020-015-0041-1 · DOI
  42. 10.1177/1534735418823266 · DOI
  43. 10.1207/S15324826AN0904_5 · DOI
  44. 10.1212/WNL.24.11.1019 · DOI
  45. 10.1076/jcen.20.3.339.822 · DOI · Paper page
  46. 10.1177/1087054707299367 · DOI · Paper page
  47. 10.1093/sleep/34.5.601 · DOI · Paper page
  48. 10.2307/2529876 · DOI · Paper page
  49. 10.3322/caac.21349 · DOI · Paper page
  50. 10.1002/cncr.24287 · DOI
  51. 10.1177/0269216309106872 · DOI
  52. 10.1089/jpm.2008.0230 · DOI
  53. 10.1007/s00520-007-0341-9 · DOI
  54. 10.1093/neuonc/not114 · DOI · Paper page
  55. 10.1002/pbc.24078 · DOI
  56. 10.1007/s00520-012-1647-9 · DOI
  57. 10.1111/j.1532-5415.2004.52067.x · DOI
  58. 10.1186/1471-2377-13-153 · DOI
  59. 10.1093/annonc/mdt266 · DOI
  60. 10.1016/S1470-2045(11)70040-7 · DOI
  61. 10.6004/jnccn.2014.0094 · DOI
  62. 10.1002/pon.1878 · DOI
  63. 10.1007/s10549-012-2210-6 · DOI
  64. 10.1002/pon.4058 · DOI
  65. 10.1002/pon.3769 · DOI
  66. 10.1002/pon.4370 · DOI
  67. 10.1007/s10549-017-4363-9 · DOI
  68. 10.1371/journal.pone.0206874 · DOI
  69. 10.1186/s12885-019-5589-1 · DOI
  70. 10.1002/pon.3707 · DOI
  71. 10.1177/1534735415617021 · DOI
  72. 10.1007/s00520-011-1209-6 · DOI
  73. 10.1002/pon.3296 · DOI
  74. 10.1007/s11764-015-0494-3 · DOI
  75. 10.4103/1673-5374.200808 · DOI
  76. 10.1186/s12906-017-2064-x · DOI
  77. 10.1186/s12906-018-2407-2 · DOI
  78. Leung MC, 2013, Acupuncture improves cognitive function: a systematic review, Neural Regen Res, 8, 1673, 10.4103/1673-5374.121683 · DOI
  79. 10.1073/pnas.0711863105 · DOI · Paper page
  80. 10.1016/bs.vh.2016.10.004 · DOI · Paper page
  81. 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.5510-07.2008 · DOI · Paper page
  82. 10.1016/S0166-2236(02)00006-1 · DOI · Paper page
  83. 10.1016/j.autneu.2010.03.020 · DOI
  84. 10.1016/B978-0-12-411545-3.00005-5 · DOI
  85. 10.1016/j.brat.2015.02.003 · DOI
  86. 10.1007/s00520-004-0594-5 · DOI
  87. 10.1037/0022-006X.71.1.189 · DOI
  88. 10.1002/pon.525 · DOI
  89. 10.1097/SPC.0000000000000247 · DOI
  90. 10.1037/a0033425 · DOI
  91. 10.1038/s41598-017-13065-0 · DOI
  92. 10.1007/s00429-010-0262-0 · DOI · Paper page
  93. 10.3389/fnsys.2014.00046 · DOI
  94. 10.1016/j.ctrv.2012.05.002 · DOI
  95. 10.1111/jsr.12220 · DOI
  96. 10.1016/S1470-2045(10)70294-1 · DOI

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Liou, K. T., Root, J. C., Garland, S. N., Green, J., Li, Y., Li, Q. S., Kantoff, P. W., Ahles, T. A., & Mao, J. J.
Venue
Cancer
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2020-04-22
Volume
126
Issue
13
Pages
3042-3052
ISSN
  • 0008-543X
  • 1097-0142
Cited by
37
References
15
Language
en
Funders
National Cancer Institute (P30 CA008748)

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.