Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 31Cancer survivorship and careWomen's cancer prevention and managementCancer-related cognitive impairment studies

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Effects of cognitive behavioral therapy on quality of life and stress for breast cancer survivors: a meta-analysis

Zhang, Meiyun, Huang, Lihua, Feng, Zhixian, Shao, Lewen, Chen, Lixia·2017·Minerva Medica

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) has been shown to be effective in mitigating various psychosocial impacts from breast cancer. Long-term studies have yielded mixed findings on the outcome of CBT in breast cancer settings, especially with respect to quality of life (QOL) and the quantified degree of stress (QDS). EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Medline, Cochrane, Embase, and Google Scholar databases were searched and randomized controlled trials relevant to the use of CBT and its variants in breast cancer patients were selected, and their pooled results meta-analyzed. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Six studies qualified for inclusion in the meta-analysis. Results from the six pooled studies did not demonstrate that CBT improves QOL (standardized mean difference =-0.016, 95% CI=-0.898 to 0.866, P=0.972) or reduces QDS (standardized mean difference =-0.125, 95% CI=-0.268 to 0.017, P=0.084) for breast cancer survivors. However, interpretation of these results requires caution, given the small number of eligible studies, comprising a total of only 430 patients. Since the literature also includes trials of CBT combined with various other therapies, including hypnosis, exercise treatment, and stress management, with promising results in breast cancer settings, expanded clinical research is likely to demonstrate an overall benefit of CBT. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the meta-analysis fails to support the use of CBT to improve QOL or reduce stress for breast cancer survivors, CBT appears to be promising as a therapeutic intervention against many of the psychosocial impacts of breast cancer.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.23736/s0026-4806.16.04528-6

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Citations

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Zhang, M., Huang, L., Feng, Z., Shao, L., & Chen, L.
Affiliations
First Affiliated Hospital Zhejiang University (CN)
Venue
Minerva Medica
Published
2017-02
Volume
108
Issue
1
Pages
84-93
ISSN
  • 0026-4806 (ISSN-L)
  • 1827-1669
OpenAlex
W2529317167
Cited by
30
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 2
FWCI
1.46
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Minerva Medica (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Women's cancer prevention and management
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer-related cognitive impairment studies
Keywords
cognitive behavioral therapy, breast cancer survivors, quality of life, psychological stress, psychosocial impact of cancer, psycho-oncology, stress management, hypnosis, exercise therapy
MeSH terms
Aged, Breast Neoplasms, Combined Modality Therapy, Female, Humans, Middle Aged, Quality Assurance, Health Care, Quality of Life, Stress, Psychological, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Survivors

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.