ArticleJournal of advanced nursing2021
Interventions to improve physical activity in colorectal cancer survivors: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Article in Journal of advanced nursing, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Physical Activity Interventions in Colorectal Cancer Survivors: An Evidence Evaluation Attempt Across Racial/Ethnic Groups.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Physical activity levels and influencing factors among colorectal cancer patients: A cross-sectional study.BMC psychology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
aimTo examine the effectiveness of physical activity (PA) interventions on changes in PA among colorectal cancer survivors, including an examination of theoretical versus atheoretical-driven approaches, with a special focus on their effectiveness across ethnic and racial minorities.
designSystematic review with aggregated data meta-analyses. DATA SOURCES: Using six databases (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, PsycINFO, CINAHL with full text, Scopus and Web of Science), we will screen for randomized controlled trials written in English from May 1, 1993 up to December 31, 2020. REVIEW
methodsDual study-selection and data abstraction will be performed. The Behavior Change Technique Taxonomy (v1) will be used to examine behavior change techniques among selected studies, while the Theory Coding Scheme will be used to assess the extent of theory use. Risk of bias will be assessed using the revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials, while the strength of the evidence will be assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation instrument. In addition, intervention delivery will be appraised using the Template for Intervention Description and Replication. Changes in PA from each study will be calculated using the standardized mean difference effect size (Hedge's g). Results will be pooled using the inverse-variance heterogeneity model. Heterogeneity (Cochran's Q) and inconsistency (I DISCUSSION: This systematic review will identify specific racial/ethnic minorities for whom interventions are most effective and summarize the evidence of the effectiveness of theoretical vs. theoretical based intervention. IMPACT: This systematic review can direct policymakers and practitioners towards actions that are likely to bring about positive physical activity behaviour change.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.