Cited by 48Cancer survivorship and careMindfulness and Compassion InterventionsCancer-related cognitive impairment studies

Effects of mindfulness-based interventions on fatigue in cancer survivors: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Open access
Johns, Shelley A., Tarver, Will L., Secinti, Ekin, Mosher, Catherine E., Stutz, Patrick V., Carnahan, Jennifer L., Talib, Tasneem L., Shanahan, Mackenzie L. +3 more·2021·Critical Reviews in Oncology/Hematology

Abstract

This systematic review and meta-analysis was designed to determine the efficacy of mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs) in improving fatigue-related outcomes in adult cancer survivors. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were identified from PubMed, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Web of Science, and EMBASE databases and reference lists of included studies. Separate random-effects meta-analyses were conducted for fatigue and vitality/vigor. Twenty-three studies reporting on 21 RCTs (N = 2239) met inclusion criteria. MBIs significantly reduced fatigue compared to controls at post-intervention (g = 0.60, 95 % CI [0.36, 0.83]) and first follow-up (g = 0.42, 95 % CI [0.20, 0.64]). Likewise, MBIs significantly improved vitality/vigor at post-intervention (g = 0.39, 95 % CI [0.25, 0.52]) and first follow-up (g = 0.35, 95 % CI [0.03, 0.67]). The evidence grade was low due to risk of bias, substantial heterogeneity, and publication bias among studies. MBIs show promise in improving fatigue and vitality/vigor in cancer survivors. More rigorous trials are needed to address current gaps in the evidence base.

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 · 10.1016/j.critrevonc.2021.103290

Cites

77 of 77 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • MBIs are effective at reducing fatigue associated with cancer treatment.

    “Given the MBIs' effectiveness at reducing fatigue associated with cancer treatment, 38 more studies are warranted for poststroke survivors.”

    From Nursing Implications of Mindfulness-Informed Interventions for Stroke Survivors and Their Families. (2022) · cites this paper as [38]

    The Conclusions report reduced fatigue in cancer survivors after MBIs and at the first follow-up. But they describe the findings as promising, rate the evidence quality as low, and make only tentative recommendations; the claim presents effectiveness as established. The paper studies fatigue in cancer survivors rather than specifically isolating fatigue caused by cancer treatment. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • A growing body of evidence supports the benefits of mindfulness as an effective treatment to improve mood and decrease symptoms of sleep disturbance and fatigue in cancer patients.

    “A growing body of evidence supports the benefits of mindfulness as an effective treatment to improve mood and decrease symptoms of sleep disturbance and fatigue in cancer patients.12-19”

    From Implementation Readiness and Initial Effects of a Brief Mindfulness Audio Intervention Compared With a Brief Music Control During Daily Radiation Therapy for Prostate Cancer: A Randomized Pilot Study. (2024) · cites this paper as [17]

    The Results (Effect Sizes Post-Intervention; page unavailable) report significantly improved fatigue with mindfulness-based interventions in cancer survivors. The Introduction mentions mood and sleep disturbance as symptoms associated with fatigue, but the cited analysis does not establish that the interventions improve mood or reduce sleep disturbance. (LLM, conf=0.90)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Johns, S. A., Tarver, W. L., Secinti, E., Mosher, C. E., Stutz, P. V., Carnahan, J. L., Talib, T. L., Shanahan, M. L., Faidley, M. T., Kidwell, K. M., & Rand, K. L.
Affiliations
  • Regenstrief Institute (US)
  • The Ohio State University (US)
  • Indiana University – Purdue University Indianapolis (US)
  • Indiana University Indianapolis (US)
Corresponding author
Johns, Shelley A.
Venue
Critical Reviews in Oncology/Hematology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2021-04
Volume
160
Pages
103290
ISSN
1040-8428 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3134979213
Cited by
48
References
77
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 15
FWCI
1.06
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Critical Reviews in Oncology/Hematology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • IUScholarWorks (Indiana University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Walther Cancer Foundation Inc
  • National Cancer Institute
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Mindfulness and Compassion Interventions
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Cancer-related cognitive impairment studies
Keywords
mindfulness-based interventions, cancer survivors, cancer-related fatigue, vitality, vigor, psychological well-being, intervention efficacy
MeSH terms
Cancer Survivors, Adult, Fatigue, Humans, Neoplasms, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Mindfulness

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