Dataset Information

Research Quality and Impact of Cardiac Rehabilitation in Cancer Survivors : A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

ABSTRACT:

Background

Cardiac rehabilitation (CR) is endorsed to improve cardiovascular outcomes in cancer survivors. The quality of CR-based research in oncology has not been assessed.

Objectives

The aim of this study was to evaluate the quality of reporting and evidence from CR-based intervention studies in oncology and to explore associations between intervention participation and outcomes.

Methods

Systematic searches of 5 databases were conducted (January 2020) and updated (September 2021). Randomized and nonrandomized studies evaluating CR-based interventions in adult cancer survivors during and after treatment were eligible. Independent reviewers extracted data using 2 reporting guidelines (Template for Intervention Description and Replication and Consolidated Standards for Reporting Trials Harms extension), risk of bias (ROB) assessment tools (Cochrane ROB 2.0 and Cochrane Risk of Bias in Non-Randomized Studies of Interventions), and a combined inventory (Tool for the Assessment of Study Quality and reporting in Exercise). A meta-analysis was used to explore pre-intervention/post-intervention differences for commonly assessed outcomes.

Results

Ten studies involving data from 685 survivors were included. The mean quality scores for intervention reporting (Template for Intervention Description and Replication) and harms (Consolidated Standards for Reporting Trials Harms extension) were 62% and 17%, respectively. There was moderate-to-high ROB across nonrandomized (Cochrane Risk of Bias in Non-Randomized Studies of Interventions score: 25%) and randomized (ROB 2.0 score: 50%) studies. The mean standardized cardiorespiratory fitness was higher (0.42; 95% CI: 0.27-0.57), fatigue was lower (−0.45; 95% CI: −0.55 to −0.34), and percent body fat (0.07; 95% CI: −0.23 to 0.38) was not different in survivors completing CR compared with those not completing CR.

Conclusions

CR-based studies in oncology have low-to-moderate reporting quality and moderate-to-high ROB limiting interpretation, reproducibility, and translation of this evidence into practice. Central Illustration

SUBMITTER: Fakhraei R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9270627 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Cardiac rehabilitation is a comprehensive model of secondary prevention proven to reduce mortality and morbidity. The World Health Organization is developing a Package of Rehabilitation Interventions for implementation by ministries of health as part of universal healthcare across the continuum. Through a systematic review, we sought to identify the best-quality cardiac rehabilitation guidelines, and extract their recommendations for implementation by member states. A systematic search was undertaken of academic databases and guideline repositories, among other sources, through to April 2019, for English-language cardiac rehabilitation guidelines from the last 10 years, free from conflicts, and with strength of recommendations. Two authors independently considered all citations. Potentially eligible guidelines were rated for quality using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation tool, and for other characteristics such as being multi-professional, comprehensive and international in perspective; the latter criteria were used to inform selection of 3-5 guidelines meeting inclusion criteria. Equity considerations were also extracted. Altogether, 2076 unique citations were identified. Thirteen passed title and abstract screening, with six guidelines potentially eligible for inclusion in the Package of Rehabilitation Interventions and rated for quality; for two guidelines the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation tool ratings did not meet World Health Organization minimums. Of the four eligible guidelines, three were selected: the International Council of Cardiovascular Prevention and Rehabilitation (2016), National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (#172; 2013) and Scottish Intercollegiate Guideline Network (#150; 2017). Extracted recommendations were comprehensive, but psychosocial recommendations were contradictory and diet recommendations were inconsistent. A development group of the World Health Organization will review and refine the recommendations which will then undergo peer review, before open source dissemination for implementation.

Project description:The impact of cancer interventions has been conducted in several research due to the significant burden of this non-communicable disease. The interventions that played an important role in the improvement of the patient's quality of life (QoL) and health-related quality of life (HRQL) can be classified into two main groups: pharmaceutical and non-pharmacological methods. However, studies so far often analyze a specific group of interventions for specific types of cancer. Thus, in this systematic review and meta-analysis, we synthesized the overall impact of cancer interventions on patients' quality of life in several cancers.In this research, we followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) to search the longitudinal original research on the Web of Science (WOS) database. After that, the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) and Jadad Scale were used to assess the quality of non-randomized control trials and randomized control trials, respectively. Then, the characteristics of the included studies were described in the six main fields table and the random effect model with robust estimation was applied to analyze the impact of interventions on the health utility of patients.From the database, 122 longitudinal original research were included in the meta-regression, with most of them having high or fair quality. The European Organization for the research and treatment of cancer scale for quality of life (EORTC-QLQ) was the most used health utility measurement at 65.15%. In the adjusted effect models, the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) had significant statistics in all models when we compared it with the EQ-5D Scale (p < 0.05) and several types of cancer such as breast, lung, and prostate cancer had significant statistics when comparing with hematological cancer in the model types of cancer (p < 0.01). Moreover, radiotherapy, screening, and a combination of chemotherapy and best supportive care also had significant statistics (p < 0.01) in the model of interventions when compared with radiotherapy applied only. Our research can suggest a vital combination of both pharmaceutical and non-pharmacological interventions to improve the quality of life of some common types of cancer patients.

Project description:Coronary heart disease is the leading cause of death and disability worldwide. Traditionally, cardiac rehabilitation programmes are offered after cardiac events to aid recovery, improve quality of life, and reduce adverse events. The objective of this review was to assess the health-related quality of life, after a supervised cardiac rehabilitation programme, of patients who suffered a myocardial infarction. A systematic review was carried out in the CINAHL, Cochrane, LILACS, Medline, Scopus, and SciELO databases, according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. Randomised controlled trials were selected. Meta-analyses were performed for the Short Form Health Survey SF-36, Myocardial Infarction Dimensional Assessment Scale (MIDAS), MacNew Heart Disease-Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQL) questionnaire, and European Quality of Life-Visual Analogue Scale (EuroQol-VAS) with the software Cochrane RevMan Web. Ten articles were found covering a total of 3577 patients. In the meta-analysis, the effect size of the cardiac rehabilitation programme was statistically significant in the intervention group for physical activity, emotional reaction, and dependency dimensions of the MIDAS questionnaire. For the control group, the score improved for SF-36 physical functioning, and body pain dimensions. The mean difference between the control and intervention group was not significant for the remaining dimensions, and neither for the MacNew Heart Disease-HRQL and EuroQol-VAS questionnaires. Supervised cardiac rehabilitation programmes were effective in improving health-related quality of life, however, there was a potential variability in the interventions; therefore, the results should be interpreted with caution. This study supports the importance of providing care and evaluating interventions via the supervision of trained health professionals, and further randomised clinical trials are needed to analyse the positive changes in mental and physical health outcomes.

Project description:ObjectiveTo compare the effect of home based and supervised centre based cardiac rehabilitation on mortality and morbidity, health related quality of life, and modifiable cardiac risk factors in patients with coronary heart disease.DesignSystematic review.Data sourcesCochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) in the Cochrane Library, Medline, Embase, CINAHL, and PsycINFO, without language restriction, searched from 2001 to January 2008.Review methodsReference lists checked and advice sought from authors. Included randomised controlled trials that compared centre based cardiac rehabilitation with home based programmes in adults with acute myocardial infarction, angina, or heart failure or who had undergone coronary revascularisation. Two reviewers independently assessed the eligibility of the identified trials and extracted data independently. Authors were contacted when possible to obtain missing information.Results12 studies (1938 participants) were included. Most studies recruited patients with a low risk of further events after myocardial infarction or revascularisation. No difference was seen between home based and centre based cardiac rehabilitation in terms of mortality (relative risk 1.31, 95% confidence interval 0.65 to 2.66), cardiac events, exercise capacity (standardised mean difference -0.11, -0.35 to 0.13), modifiable risk factors (weighted mean difference systolic blood pressure (0.58 mm Hg, -3.29 mm Hg to 4.44 mm Hg), total cholesterol (-0.13 mmol/l, -0.31 mmol/l to 0.05 mmol/l), low density lipoprotein cholesterol (-0.15 mmol/l, -0.31 mmol/l to 0.01 mmol/l), or relative risk for proportion of smokers at follow-up (0.98, 0.73 to 1.31)), or health related quality of life, with the exception of high density lipoprotein cholesterol (-0.06, -0.11 to -0.02) mmol/l). In the home based participants, there was evidence of superior adherence. No consistent difference was seen in the healthcare costs of the two forms of cardiac rehabilitation.ConclusionsHome and centre based forms of cardiac rehabilitation seem to be equally effective in improving clinical and health related quality of life outcomes in patients with a low risk of further events after myocardial infarction or revascularisation. This finding, together with the absence of evidence of differences in patients' adherence and healthcare costs between the two approaches, supports the further provision of evidence based, home based cardiac rehabilitation programmes such as the "Heart Manual." The choice of participating in a more traditional supervised centre based or evidence based home based programme should reflect the preference of the individual patient.

Project description:BackgroundCardiac rehabilitation (CR) decreases the morbidity and mortality risk among patients with cardiac diseases; however, the impact of CR on patients with diabetes remains underexplored. This is a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis methodology to explore if the effect of CR on mortality and morbidity is the same in patients with type 2 diabetes compared with patients without diabetes.Methods and analysisInterventional and non-interventional studies comparing the effect of CR, for at least 1 month, on all-cause mortality and cardiovascular outcomes including fatal and non-fatal myocardial infarction, revascularisation and rehospitalisation in adults with cardiac diseases will be deemed eligible for inclusion. Studies published between 1990 and 2020 will be searched in PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, CINAHL, Scopus and in registries for randomised controlled trials. Eligible studies will be selected using the Covidence software, and their salient details regarding the design, population, tested interventions and outcomes of interest will be gathered. The quality of studies to be deemed eligible and reviewed will be assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration and National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute's tools. The appraisal process will be based on the study design (interventional and non-interventional). In the meta-analysis step, the pooled effect of CR on the outcomes will be estimated. All meta-analyses will be done using the random-effects model approach (inverse-variance method). I 2 and p value of χ2 statistics will guide the heterogeneity assessment. Subgroup analyses will also be performed. The small study effect will be investigated by generating the funnel plots. The symmetry of the latter will be tested by performing Egger's test.Ethics and disseminationThe systematic review will use data from published literature; hence, no ethical approval will be required. Findings of the systematic review and meta-analysis will be published in peer-reviewed international journals and will be disseminated in local and international scientific meetings.Prospero registration numberCRD42020148832.

Project description:BackgroundDepression may negatively affect stroke outcomes and the progress of recovery. However, there is a lack of updated comprehensive evidence to inform clinical practice and directions of future studies. In this review, we report the multidimensional impact of depression on stroke outcomes.MethodsData sources. PubMed, PsycINFO, EMBASE, and Global Index Medicus were searched from the date of inception. Eligibility criteria. Prospective studies which investigated the impact of depression on stroke outcomes (cognition, returning to work, quality of life, functioning, and survival) were included. Data extraction. Two authors extracted data independently and solved the difference with a third reviewer using an extraction tool developed prior. The extraction tool included sample size, measurement, duration of follow-up, stroke outcomes, statistical analysis, and predictors outcomes. Risk of bias. We used Effective Public Health Practice Project (EPHPP) to assess the quality of the included studies.ResultsEighty prospective studies were included in the review. These studies investigated the impact of depression on the ability to return to work (n = 4), quality of life (n = 12), cognitive impairment (n = 5), functioning (n = 43), and mortality (n = 24) where a study may report on more than one outcome. Though there were inconsistencies, the evidence reported that depression had negative consequences on returning to work, functioning, quality of life, and mortality rate. However, the impact on cognition was not conclusive. In the meta-analysis, depression was associated with premature mortality (HR: 1.61 (95% CI; 1.33, 1.96)), and worse functioning (OR: 1.64 (95% CI; 1.36, 1.99)).ConclusionDepression affects many aspects of stroke outcomes including survival The evidence is not conclusive on cognition and there was a lack of evidence in low-income settings. The results showed the need for early diagnosis and intervention of depression after stroke. The protocol was pre-registered on the International Prospective Register of Systematic Review (PROSPERO) (CRD42021230579).