| Title |
The effect of exercise on cancer-related fatigue in cancer survivors: a systematic review and meta-analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment, February 2018
|
| DOI | 10.2147/ndt.s150464 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Ellen Kessels, Olga Husson, Christina M van der Feltz-Cornelis |
| Abstract |
The objective of the study was to conduct systematic review and meta-analysis to establish the effect of exercise interventions on cancer-related fatigue (CRF) in cancer survivors, compared to non-exercise intervention controls. Trials published between January 1st 2000 and August 17th 2016 were included through PubMed database search and search of references. Eligible trials compared the effect of an exercise intervention on CRF compared to non-exercise intervention controls, with CRF as primary outcome and measured by validated self-report questionnaire, in cancer survivors not receiving palliative care. We evaluated risk of bias of individual trials following Cochrane Quality criteria. We performed a random-effects meta-analysis in the low risk of bias trials with intervention type, exercise intensity, adherence, and cancer type as moderators, and also performed meta-regression analyses and a sensitivity analysis including the high risk of bias trials. Out of 274 trials, 11 met the inclusion criteria, of which six had low risk of bias. Exercise improved CRF with large effect size (Cohen'sd0.605, 95% CI 0.235-0.975) with no significant difference between types of cancer. Aerobic exercise (Δ=1.009, CI 0.222-1.797) showed a significantly greater effect than a combination of aerobic and resistance exercises (Δ=0.341, CI 0.129-0.552). Moderator and meta-regression analyses showed high adherence yielding best improvements. Exercise has a large effect on CRF in cancer survivors. Aerobic interventions with high adherence have the best result. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 66 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 26 | 39% |
| United States | 4 | 6% |
| Canada | 3 | 5% |
| Netherlands | 2 | 3% |
| Ireland | 2 | 3% |
| Belgium | 1 | 2% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 27 | 41% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 48 | 73% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 10 | 15% |
| Scientists | 7 | 11% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 2% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 288 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 288 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 43 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 38 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 28 | 10% |
| Researcher | 20 | 7% |
| Other | 16 | 6% |
| Other | 53 | 18% |
| Unknown | 90 | 31% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 64 | 22% |
| Sports and Recreations | 34 | 12% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 33 | 11% |
| Psychology | 13 | 5% |
| Social Sciences | 8 | 3% |
| Other | 30 | 10% |
| Unknown | 106 | 37% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 65. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 31 August 2022.
All research outputs
#660,662
of 25,517,918 outputs
Outputs from Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment
#83
of 3,140 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#15,536
of 449,678 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment
#4
of 84 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,517,918 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 97th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,140 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.6. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 449,678 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 84 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.