Systematic Review of Massage Intervention for Adult Patients With Cancer
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
In Brief Findings from studies of massage, one of the most commonly used nonpharmacological nursing interventions for managing cancer pain, are inconsistent. The purpose of this article was to elucidate the methodological underpinnings of these inconsistencies with a systematic review of study design, methods, and massage efficacy in adult patients with cancer. A total of 15 studies published in English between 1986 and 2006 were identified by searching in 6 electronic databases. An author-developed tool and an adapted assessment tool were used to extract information from each study and examine the quality of reviewed studies. Methodological issues that potentially account for discrepancies across studies included less rigorous inclusion criteria, failure to consider potential confounding variables, less than rigorous research designs, inconsistent massage doses and protocols, measurement errors related to sensitivity of instruments and timing of measurements, and inadequate statistical power. Areas for future study include determination of appropriate cutoff values of selected outcome measures, delivery of equal doses along with standardized massage protocols, examination of length of massage effects over time, and use of single-blinding randomized clinical trials with large sample sizes. Findings from studies of massage, one of the most commonly used nonpharmacological nursing interventions for managing cancer pain, are inconsistent. The purpose of this article was to elucidate the methodological underpinnings of these inconsistencies with a systematic review of study design, methods, and massage efficacy in adult patients with cancer. A total of 15 studies published in English between 1986 and 2006 were identified by searching in 6 electronic databases. An author-developed tool and an adapted assessment tool were used to extract information from each study and examine the quality of reviewed studies. Methodological issues that potentially account for discrepancies across studies included less rigorous inclusion criteria, failure to consider potential confounding variables, less than rigorous research designs, inconsistent massage doses and protocols, measurement errors related to sensitivity of instruments and timing of measurements, and inadequate statistical power. Areas for future study include determination of appropriate cutoff values of selected outcome measures, delivery of equal doses along with standardized massage protocols, examination of length of massage effects over time, and use of single-blinding randomized clinical trials with large sample sizes.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,003 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».