Skip to main content

Table 5 Summary of findings for the main comparison

From: The impact on quality of life from informing diagnosis in patients with cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Totally informed of diagnosis versus uninformed of diagnosis

Patient: cancer patients

Intervention: totally informed of diagnosis

Comparison: uninformed of diagnosis

Outcomes

Sample Size (Number + Study Design)

Evidence Grade

Relative Effect (95% CI)

Prospective Absolute Effect (95%CI)

General Quality of Life

1593 (10 cohort studies)

Very Low1

SMD 0.12 [− 0.09, 0.34]

SMD 0.12 SD higher (− 0.09 lower to 0.34 higher)

Role Functioning

1250 (9 cohort studies)

Low

MD 0.17 [−0.05, 0.39]

MD 0.17 higher (− 0.05 lower to 0.39 higher)

Cognitive Activity

1150 (8 cohort studies)

Very Low2

SMD 0.61 [− 0.06, 1.28]

SMD 0.61 higher (− 0.06 lower to 1.28 higher)

Vitality

212 (3 cohort studies)

Very Low2 3 4

SMD 2.22 [0.11, 4.33]

SMD 2.22 higher (0.11 lower to 4.33 higher)

Emotional Function

1793 (14 cohort studies)

Very Low 5

SMD 0.13 [−0.20, 0.47]

SMD 0.13 higher (−0.20 lower to 0.47 higher)

Social Function

2045 (17 cohort studies)

Very Low 6

SMD 0.58 [0.11, 1.05]

SMD 0.58 higher (0.11 lower to 1.05 higher)

Physical Function

1733 (13 cohort studies)

Low 7

SMD 0.03 [−0.26, 0.32]

SMD 0.03 higher (− 0.26 lower to 0.32 higher)

Nausea and Vomiting

1250 (9 cohort studies)

Very Low 8

SMD − 0.13 [− 0.46, 0.20]

SMD − 0.13 higher (− 0.46 lower to 0.20 higher)

Pain

1541 (13 cohort studies)

Very Low9

SMD − 0.24 [− 0.61, 0.14]

SMD − 0.24 higher (− 0.61 lower to 0.14 higher)

Dyspnea

1250 (9 cohort studies)

Low

SMD − 0.01 [− 0.12, 0.10]

SMD − 0.01 higher (− 0.12 lower to 0.10 higher)

Fatigue

1250 (9 cohort studies)

Very Low10

SMD 0.07 [− 0.23, 0.38]

SMD 0.07 higher (− 0.23 lower to 0.38 higher)

Financial Difficulty

1123 (9 cohort studies)

Very Low8

SMD 0.14 (0.01 ~ 1.47)

SMD 0.14 higher (0.01 lower to 1.47 higher)

Diarrhea

1250 (9 cohort studies)

Very Low11

SMD − 0.03 [− 0.21, 0.15]

SMD − 0.03 higher (− 0.21 lower to 0.15 higher)

Constipation

1250 (9 cohort studies)

Low

SMD 0.04 [− 0.12, 0.20]

SMD 0.04 higher (− 0.12 lower to 0.20 higher)

Appetite Loss

1250 (9 cohort studies)

Low

SMD 0.06 [− 0.05, 0.17]

SMD 0.06 higher (− 0.05 lower to 0.17 higher)

Insomnia

1250 (9 cohort studies)

Low

SMD 0.08 [− 0.05, 0.21]

SMD 0.06 higher (− 0.05 lower to 0.17 higher)

Partly informed of diagnosis versus uninformed of diagnosis

Patient: cancer patients

Intervention: partly informed of diagnosis

Comparison: uninformed of diagnosis

General Quality of Life

219 (3 cohort studies)

Very Low12

SMD 0.23 [− 0.26, 0.72]

SMD 0.23 higher (− 0.26 lower to 0.72 higher)

Pain

217 (3 cohort studies)

Very Low3 4

SMD − 0.15 [− 0.42, 0.13]

MD − 0.15 higher (− 0.42 lower to 0.13 higher)

Physical Function

286 (4 cohort studies)

Very Low3 4

SMD 0.01 [− 0.22, 0.25]

SMD 0.01 higher (− 0.22 lower to 0.25 higher)

Social Function

296 (4 cohort studies)

Very Low3 4

SMD 0.18 [− 0.15, 0.51]

SMD 0.18 higher (− 0.15 lower to 0.51 higher)

Emotional Function

296 (4 cohort studies)

Very Low3 4

SMD − 1.24 [− 2.75, 0.26]

SMD − 1.24 higher (− 2.75 lower to 0.26 higher)

  1. CI Confidence interval, SMD Standardized mean difference
  2. GRADE Working Group grades of evidence
  3. High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect
  4. Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate
  5. Low quality: Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate
  6. Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estimate
  7. Reasons for downgraded:
  8. 1. The confidence interval’ overlaps were low and I2 was 70%
  9. 2. The confidence interval’ overlaps were low and I2 was 97%
  10. 3. The sample sizes were fewer than 300 participants included in the total
  11. 4. The 95% confidence interval was too wide
  12. 5. The confidence interval’ overlaps were low and I2 was 91%
  13. 6. The confidence interval’ overlaps were low and I2 was 96%
  14. 7. The confidence interval’ overlaps were low and I2 was 88%
  15. 8. The confidence interval’ overlaps were low and I2 was 89%
  16. 9. The confidence interval’ overlaps were low and I2 was 92%
  17. 10. The confidence interval’ overlaps were low and I2 was 86%
  18. 11. The confidence interval’ overlaps were low and I2 was 60%
  19. 12. The confidence interval’ overlaps were low and I2 was 67%