Cochrane · systematic review · CD008529

Psychosocial interventions for men with prostate cancer

Parahoo, K, McDonough, S, McCaughan, E, et al. · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2013 · Cochrane Library

UrologyAMSTAR 2: not assessed
SoF tableOnly the outcomes this review put in its Summary of Findings table are listed (the Cochrane Handbook caps them at about seven per comparison). Its other analyses are not shown here.
Questions
7
current version
GRADE rated
7
No studies
0
Included studies
NR
No studies 0 · 0%Ungraded 0 · 0%Very low 5 · 71.4%Low 1 · 14.3%Moderate 1 · 14.3%High 0 · 0%

Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.

Questions and results

Psychosocial interventions compared with usual care for men with prostate cancer

Population: patients with prostate cancer
7 questions
OutcomeEffectEvidenceStatus / GRADE
General health–related quality of life: physical component at end of intervention
Psychosocial interventions vs usual care
no estimate extracted1414 participantsLow
Downgraded: risk of bias
General health–related quality of life: mental component at end of intervention
Psychosocial interventions vs usual care
no estimate extracted1416 participantsModerate
Downgraded: risk of bias
Self‐efficacy at end of intervention
Psychosocial interventions vs usual care
no estimate extracted337 participantsVery low
Downgraded: risk of bias
Prostate cancer knowledge at end of intervention
Psychosocial interventions vs usual care
no estimate extracted506 participantsVery low
Downgraded: risk of bias
Uncertainty at end of intervention
Psychosocial interventions vs usual care
no estimate extracted916 participantsVery low
Downgraded: risk of bias
Distress at end of intervention
Psychosocial interventions vs usual care
no estimate extracted916 participantsVery low
Downgraded: risk of bias
Depression at end of intervention
Psychosocial interventions vs usual care
no estimate extracted434 participantsVery low
Downgraded: risk of bias