Comparative effectiveness of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions for dyspnea management in advanced cancer: A systematic review and network meta-analysis
In Plain Language: cancer pain, explained
This study aimed to evaluate and rank the effectiveness of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions for managing dyspnea severity, anxiety, exercise capacity, and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in patients with advanced cancer. A comprehensive search of PUBMED, HINARI, CENTRAL, and ResearchGate was conducted to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published up to March 2024. Network meta-analysis was performed to compare interventions, calculating mean differences (MD) and standardized mean differences (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). P-scores were used to rank the interventions. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane tool, and the quality of evidence (QOE) was evaluated using the GRADE framework. A total of 42 RCTs, encompassing 3,832 patients, were included in the analysis. Among the evaluated interventions, high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) demonstrated the most significant improvement in dyspnea relief (SMD = -1.91; 95% CI: -3.32 to -0.49; QOE: moderate), followed by acupressure/reflexology (SMD = -1.04; 95% CI: -2.02 to -0.06; QOE: very low). Activity rehabilitation was the only intervention that significantly reduced anxiety compared to the control group (SMD = -0.64; 95% CI: -0.97 to -0.32; QOE: very low). While all interventions showed trends of improving exercise capacity, none reached statistical significance. Notably, acupressure/reflexology significantly enhanced HRQoL (SMD = 1.55; 95% CI: 0.22 to 2.88; QOE: moderate). Non-pharmacological interventions, particularly HFNC and acupressure/reflexology, were more effective than pharmacological approaches in improving dyspnea relief and HRQoL. However, the low quality of evidence underscores the need for high-quality, large-scale trials to confirm these findings and refine treatment strategies for dyspnea management in advanced cancer patients. PROSPERO CRD42023479041.
Key Findings: what this systematic review found about cancer pain
- ✓High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) demonstrated the most significant improvement in dyspnea relief among evaluated interventions with a standardized mean difference of -1.91.
- ✓This network meta-analysis of 42 randomized controlled trials involving 3,832 patients compared both pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions for managing dyspnea, anxiety, exercise capacity, and health-related quality of life in advanced cancer patients.
- ✓The study used P-scores to rank interventions and GRADE framework to evaluate the quality of evidence, providing a comprehensive comparison of treatment effectiveness across multiple outcomes.
What This Means for You
Reflexology may help reduce shortness of breath and improve quality of life in advanced cancer, but the evidence is still developing and should complement, not replace, medical care.
What This Means for Practitioners
This systematic review provides moderate-quality evidence that reflexology/acupressure can meaningfully improve dyspnea and quality of life in advanced cancer patients, supporting its use as part of integrated care.
Study Design: how this systematic review was run
Cancer pain: common questions
What does this study say about cancer pain?
Reflexology may help reduce shortness of breath and improve quality of life in advanced cancer, but the evidence is still developing and should complement, not replace, medical care.
What did this study find?
High-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) demonstrated the most significant improvement in dyspnea relief among evaluated interventions with a standardized mean difference of -1.91. This network meta-analysis of 42 randomized controlled trials involving 3,832 patients compared both pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions for managing dyspnea, anxiety, exercise capacity, and health-related quality of life in advanced cancer patients. The study used P-scores to rank interventions and GRADE framework to evaluate the quality of evidence, providing a comprehensive comparison of treatment effectiveness across multiple outcomes.
How strong is this evidence?
This is a systematic review and we rate its evidence strong. It covers 3,832 participants. It was published in Asia-Pacific journal of oncology nursing. This study is indexed here for context; it did not test reflexology itself.
Related Research
Complementary therapy in practice
Effect of Reflexology on Decreasing Postoperative Pain and Anxiety After Total Abdominal Hysterectomy: Erratum
Engaging Patients in Research That Involves Meditation: Religious Concerns and Nursing Implications
Improving Quality of Life in The Constipated Older Person: Reflexology or Abdominal Massage? A Two-Group, Randomized Comparative Trial
Effect of Reflexology on Decreasing Postoperative Pain and Anxiety After Total Abdominal Hysterectomy
Looking for a reflexologist?
Find practitioners who can help with the conditions studied in this research.
Find a Reflexologist