Dataset Information

A Systematic Review of Exercise Systematic Reviews in the Cancer Literature (2005-2017).

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Evidence supports the benefits of exercise for patients with cancer; however, specific guidance for clinical decision making regarding exercise timing, frequency, duration, and intensity is lacking. Efforts are needed to optimize clinical recommendations for exercise in the cancer population. OBJECTIVES:To aggregate information regarding the benefit of exercise through a systematic review of existing systematic reviews in the cancer exercise literature. DATA SOURCES:PubMed, CINAHL Plus, Scopus, Web of Science, and EMBASE. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA:Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of the impact of movement-based exercise on the adult cancer population. METHODS:Two author teams reviewed 302 abstracts for inclusion with 93 selected for full-text review. A total of 53 studies were analyzed. A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) was used as a quality measure of the reviews. Information was extracted using the PICO format (ie, participants, intervention, comparison, outcomes). Descriptive findings are reported. RESULTS:Mean AMSTAR score = 7.66/11 (±2.04) suggests moderate quality of the systematic reviews. Exercise is beneficial before, during, and after cancer treatment, across all cancer types, and for a variety of cancer-related impairments. Moderate-to-vigorous exercise is the best level of exercise intensity to improve physical function and mitigate cancer-related impairments. Therapeutic exercises are beneficial to manage treatment side effects, may enhance tolerance to cancer treatments, and improve functional outcomes. Supervised exercise yielded superior benefits versus unsupervised. Serious adverse events were not common. LIMITATIONS:Movement-based exercise intervention outcomes are reported. No analysis of pooled effects was calculated across reviews due to significant heterogeneity within the systematic reviews. Findings do not consider exercise in advanced cancers or pediatric populations. CONCLUSIONS:Exercise promotes significant improvements in clinical, functional, and in some populations, survival outcomes and can be recommended regardless of the type of cancer. Although generally safe, patients should be screened and appropriate precautions taken. Efforts to strengthen uniformity in clinical trial reporting, develop clinical practice guidelines, and integrate exercise and rehabilitation services into the cancer delivery system are needed.

SUBMITTER: Stout NL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5679711 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A Systematic Review of Exercise Systematic Reviews in the Cancer Literature (2005-2017).

Stout Nicole L NL Baima Jennifer J Swisher Anne K AK Winters-Stone Kerri M KM Welsh Judith J

PM & R : the journal of injury, function, and rehabilitation 20170901 9S2

<h4>Background</h4>Evidence supports the benefits of exercise for patients with cancer; however, specific guidance for clinical decision making regarding exercise timing, frequency, duration, and intensity is lacking. Efforts are needed to optimize clinical recommendations for exercise in the cancer population.<h4>Objectives</h4>To aggregate information regarding the benefit of exercise through a systematic review of existing systematic reviews in the cancer exercise literature.<h4>Data sources< ...[more]

PMID: 28942909

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe recent, rapid development of digital technologies offers new possibilities for more efficient implementation of electronic health record (EHR) and personal health record (PHR) systems. A growing volume of healthcare data has been the hallmark of this digital transformation. The large healthcare datasets' complexity and their dynamic nature pose various challenges related to processing, analysis, storage, security, privacy, data exchange, and usability.Materials and methodsWe performed a systematic review of systematic reviews to assess technological progress in EHR and PHR systems. We searched MEDLINE, Cochrane, Web of Science, and Scopus for systematic literature reviews on technological advancements that support EHR and PHR systems published between January 1, 2010, and October 06, 2020.ResultsThe searches resulted in a total of 2,448 hits. Of these, we finally selected 23 systematic reviews. Most of the included papers dealt with information extraction tools and natural language processing technology (n = 10), followed by studies that assessed the use of blockchain technology in healthcare (n = 8). Other areas of digital technology research included EHR and PHR systems in austere settings (n = 1), de-identification methods (n = 1), visualization techniques (n = 1), communication tools within EHR and PHR systems (n = 1), and methodologies for defining Clinical Information Models that promoted EHRs and PHRs interoperability (n = 1).ConclusionsTechnological advancements can improve the efficiency in the implementation of EHR and PHR systems in numerous ways. Natural language processing techniques, either rule-based, machine-learning, or deep learning-based, can extract information from clinical narratives and other unstructured data locked in EHRs and PHRs, allowing secondary research (i.e., phenotyping). Moreover, EHRs and PHRs are expected to be the primary beneficiaries of the blockchain technology implementation on Health Information Systems. Governance regulations, lack of trust, poor scalability, security, privacy, low performance, and high cost remain the most critical challenges for implementing these technologies.

Project description:BackgroundSystematic literature searching is recognised as a critical component of the systematic review process. It involves a systematic search for studies and aims for a transparent report of study identification, leaving readers clear about what was done to identify studies, and how the findings of the review are situated in the relevant evidence. Information specialists and review teams appear to work from a shared and tacit model of the literature search process. How this tacit model has developed and evolved is unclear, and it has not been explicitly examined before. The purpose of this review is to determine if a shared model of the literature searching process can be detected across systematic review guidance documents and, if so, how this process is reported in the guidance and supported by published studies.MethodA literature review. Two types of literature were reviewed: guidance and published studies. Nine guidance documents were identified, including: The Cochrane and Campbell Handbooks. Published studies were identified through 'pearl growing', citation chasing, a search of PubMed using the systematic review methods filter, and the authors' topic knowledge. The relevant sections within each guidance document were then read and re-read, with the aim of determining key methodological stages. Methodological stages were identified and defined. This data was reviewed to identify agreements and areas of unique guidance between guidance documents. Consensus across multiple guidance documents was used to inform selection of 'key stages' in the process of literature searching.ResultsEight key stages were determined relating specifically to literature searching in systematic reviews. They were: who should literature search, aims and purpose of literature searching, preparation, the search strategy, searching databases, supplementary searching, managing references and reporting the search process.ConclusionsEight key stages to the process of literature searching in systematic reviews were identified. These key stages are consistently reported in the nine guidance documents, suggesting consensus on the key stages of literature searching, and therefore the process of literature searching as a whole, in systematic reviews. Further research to determine the suitability of using the same process of literature searching for all types of systematic review is indicated.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Acute low back pain is associated with pain and disability, but symptoms are often self-healing. The effectiveness of exercise therapy for acute low back pain remains uncertain with conflicting evidence from systematic reviews. The aim of this systematic review of systematic reviews was to assess the overall certainty of evidence for the effects of exercise therapy, compared with other interventions, on pain, disability, recurrence, and adverse effects in adult patients with acute low back pain. METHODS:PubMed, the Cochrane library, CINAHL, PEDro, Open Grey, Web of Science, and PROSPERO were searched for systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials. Methodological quality was assessed independently by two authors using AMSTAR. Meta-analyses were performed if possible, using data from the original studies. Data for pain, disability, recurrence, and adverse effects were analyzed. Certainty of evidence was assessed using GRADE. RESULTS:The searches retrieved 2602 records, of which 134 publications were selected for full-text screening. Twenty-four reviews were included, in which 21 randomized controlled trials (n = 2685) presented data for an acute population, related to 69 comparisons. Overlap was high, 76%, with a corrected covered area of 0.14. Methodological quality varied from low to high. Exercise therapy was categorized into general exercise therapy, stabilization exercise, and McKenzie therapy. No important difference in pain or disability was evident when exercise therapy was compared with sham ultrasound, nor for the comparators usual care, spinal manipulative therapy, advice to stay active, and educational booklet. Neither McKenzie therapy nor stabilization exercise yielded any important difference in effects compared with other types of exercise therapy. Certainty of evidence varied from very low to moderate. CONCLUSIONS:The findings suggest very low to moderate certainty of evidence that exercise therapy may result in little or no important difference in pain or disability, compared with other interventions, in adult patients with acute low back pain. A limitation of this systematic review is that some included reviews were of low quality. When implementing findings of this systematic review in clinical practice, patients' preferences and the clinician's expertise also should be considered, to determine if and when exercise therapy should be the intervention of choice. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION:PROSPERO: CRD46146, available at: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=46146 .

Dataset Information

A Systematic Review of Exercise Systematic Reviews in the Cancer Literature (2005-2017).

Publications

A Systematic Review of Exercise Systematic Reviews in the Cancer Literature (2005-2017).

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets