Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35884512›Full record

ReviewCancers2022

Prehabilitation to Improve Outcomes of Patients with Gynaecological Cancer: A New Window of Opportunity?

Joëlle Dhanis, Nathaniel Keidan, Dominic Blake, Stuart Rundle, Dieuwke Strijker, Maaike van Ham, Johanna M A Pijnenborg, Anke Smits

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cancers, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed
3.2field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 31 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Preoperative prehabilitation in adults: A concept analysis.International journal of nursing studies advances · 2026
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Multimodal Prehabilitation for Gynecologic Cancer Surgery.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2025
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Prehabilitation: tertiary prevention matters.The British journal of surgery · 2024
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Joëlle DhanisDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Radboud University Medical Centre, 6525 GA Nijmegen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-8527-2990
Nathaniel KeidanDepartment of Gynaecological Oncology, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Gateshead NE9 6SX, UK.
Dominic BlakeDepartment of Gynaecological Oncology, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Gateshead NE9 6SX, UK.
Stuart RundleDepartment of Gynaecological Oncology, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Gateshead NE9 6SX, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-0977-3347
Dieuwke StrijkerDepartment of Surgery, Radboud University Medical Centre, 6525 GA Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Maaike van HamDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Radboud University Medical Centre, 6525 GA Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Johanna M A PijnenborgDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Radboud University Medical Centre, 6525 GA Nijmegen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-6138-1236
Anke SmitsDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Radboud University Medical Centre, 6525 GA Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Radboud University Nijmegen · NLQueen Elizabeth Hospital · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The literature evaluating the effect of prehabilitation programmes on postoperative outcomes and quality of life of patients with gynaecological cancer undergoing surgery was reviewed. Databases including Pubmed, Medline, EMBASE (Ovid) and PsycINFO were systematically searched to identify studies evaluating the effect of prehabilitation programmes on patients with gynaecological cancer. Both unimodal and multimodal prehabilitation programmes were included encompassing physical exercise and nutritional and psychological support. Primary outcomes were surgical complications and quality of life. Secondary outcomes were anthropometric changes and adherence to the prehabilitation programme. Seven studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria, comprising 580 patients. Included studies were nonrandomised prospective studies (n = 4), retrospective studies (n = 2) and one case report. Unimodal programmes and multimodal programmes were included. In patients with ovarian cancer, multimodal prehabilitation resulted in significantly reduced hospital stay and time to chemotherapy. In patients with endometrial and cervical cancer, prehabilitation was associated with significant weight loss, but had no significant effects on surgical complications or mortality. No adverse events of the programmes were reported. Evidence on the effect of prehabilitation for patients with gynaecological cancer is limited. Future studies are needed to determine the effects on postoperative complications and quality of life.

Indexed as

cervical cancerendometrial cancergynaecological canceroperative complicationsovarian cancerprehabilitationquality of life

Identifiers

PMID35884512
PMCPMC9351657
OpenAlexW4285733487

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.