Systematic Review of Massage Intervention for Adult Patients With Cancer
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it