Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34987305›Full record

ArticleRehabilitation process and outcome2021

Bioelectrical Impedance Vector Pattern and Biomarkers of Physical Functioning of Prostate Cancer Survivors in Rehabilitation.

Alexander Stäuber, Marc Heydenreich, Peter R Wright, Steffen Großmann, Niklas Grusdat, Dirk-Henrik Zermann, Henry Schulz

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Rehabilitation process and outcome, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 44% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Alexander StäuberProfessorship of Sports Medicine/Sports Biology, Chemnitz University of Technology, Chemnitz, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8744-236X
Marc HeydenreichDivision of Sports and Training Science, Vogtland-Klinik Bad Elster, Bad Elster, Germany.
Peter R WrightDepartment of Sport, Health Sciences and Social Work, Oxford Brookes University, Oxford, UK.
Steffen GroßmannProfessorship of Sports Medicine/Sports Biology, Chemnitz University of Technology, Chemnitz, Germany.
Niklas GrusdatProfessorship of Sports Medicine/Sports Biology, Chemnitz University of Technology, Chemnitz, Germany.
Dirk-Henrik ZermannDivision of Sports and Training Science, Vogtland-Klinik Bad Elster, Bad Elster, Germany.
Henry SchulzProfessorship of Sports Medicine/Sports Biology, Chemnitz University of Technology, Chemnitz, Germany.
Chemnitz University of Technology · DEVogtland-Klinik · DEOxford Brookes University · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundKnowledge of clinically established factors of physical function such as body composition, bioelectrical phase angle (PhA) and handgrip strength (HGS) with mortality predictive and health-related relevance is limited in prostate cancer survivors (PCS). Therefore, the aim of this study was to characterise and compare body composition data of PCS with extensive reference data as well as to analyse PhA and HGS and the prevalence of critical prognostic values at an early stage of cancer survivorship.

methodsOne hundred and forty-eight PCS were examined at the start (T1) and end (T2) of a 3-week hospitalised urooncological rehabilitation, which began median 28 days after acute cancer therapy. Examinations included a bioimpedance analysis and HGS test. Comparison of body composition between PCS and reference data was performed using bioimpedance vector analysis (BIVA).

resultsBIVA of the whole PCS group showed abnormal physiology with a cachectic state and a state of overhydration/oedema, without significant changes between T1 and T2. The age- and BMI-stratified subgroup analysis showed that PCS aged 60 years and older had this abnormal pattern compared to the reference population. HGS (T1: 38.7 ± 8.9 vs T2: 40.8 ± 9.4, kg), but not PhA (T1/T2: 5.2 ± 0.7, °), changed significantly between T1 and T2. Values below a critical threshold reflecting a potentially higher risk of mortality and impaired function were found for PhA in 20% (T1) and 22% (T2) of PCS and in 41% (T1) and 29% (T2) for HGS.

conclusionsBIVA pattern and the prevalence of critically low HGS and PhA values illustrate the necessity for intensive continuation of rehabilitation and survivorship care especially in these 'at risk' cases. The routine assessment of body composition, PhA and HGS offer the opportunity to conduct a risk stratification for PCS and could help personalising and optimising treatment in rehabilitation and ongoing survivorship care.

Indexed as

BIVAphase anglephysical functionProstate cancerrehabilitationsurvivorship

Identifiers

PMID34987305
PMCPMC8689438
OpenAlexW4205837289

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.