Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36230490›Full record

ReviewCancers2022

Association between Energy Balance-Related Factors and Clinical Outcomes in Patients with Ovarian Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Stephanie Stelten, Christelle Schofield, Yvonne A W Hartman, Pedro Lopez, Gemma G Kenter, Robert U Newton, Daniel A Galvão, Meeke Hoedjes, Dennis R Taaffe, Luc R C W van Lonkhuijzen and 2 more

Abstract 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 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Exploring awareness, perceptions, and practices relating to nutritional status and low muscle mass in patients with ovarian cancer.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2025
    Article
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

12 authors.

Stephanie SteltenDepartment of Physiology, Radboud Institute of Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, 6525 GA Nijmegen, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-1165-1904
Christelle SchofieldExercise Medicine Research Institute, Edith Cowan University, Perth 6027, Australia.
Yvonne A W HartmanDepartment of Physiology, Radboud Institute of Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, 6525 GA Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
Pedro LopezExercise Medicine Research Institute, Edith Cowan University, Perth 6027, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-3897-667X
Gemma G KenterDepartment of Obstetrics and Gyneacology, Center for Gynaecologic Oncology Amsterdam (CGOA), Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, 1105 AZ Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Robert U NewtonExercise Medicine Research Institute, Edith Cowan University, Perth 6027, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-0302-6129
Daniel A GalvãoExercise Medicine Research Institute, Edith Cowan University, Perth 6027, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-8209-2281
Meeke HoedjesDepartment of Medical and Clinical Psychology, CoRPS-Center of Research on Psychological and Somatic Disorders, Tilburg University, 5000 LE Tilburg, The Netherlands.
Dennis R TaaffeExercise Medicine Research Institute, Edith Cowan University, Perth 6027, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-6381-1597
Luc R C W van LonkhuijzenDepartment of Obstetrics and Gyneacology, Center for Gynaecologic Oncology Amsterdam (CGOA), Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, 1105 AZ Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-6905-2704
Carolyn McIntyreExercise Medicine Research Institute, Edith Cowan University, Perth 6027, Australia.
Laurien M BuffartDepartment of Physiology, Radboud Institute of Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, 6525 GA Nijmegen, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: This systematic review and meta-analysis synthesized evidence in patients with ovarian cancer at diagnosis and/or during first-line treatment on; (i) the association of body weight, body composition, diet, exercise, sedentary behavior, or physical fitness with clinical outcomes; and (ii) the effect of exercise and/or dietary interventions. Methods: Risk of bias assessments and best-evidence syntheses were completed. Meta-analyses were performed when ≥3 papers presented point estimates and variability measures of associations or effects. Results: Body mass index (BMI) at diagnosis was not significantly associated with survival. Although the following trends were not supported by the best-evidence syntheses, the meta-analyses revealed that a higher BMI was associated with a higher risk of post-surgical complications (n = 5, HR: 1.63, 95% CI: 1.06−2.51, p = 0.030), a higher muscle mass was associated with a better progression-free survival (n = 3, HR: 1.41, 95% CI: 1.04−1.91, p = 0.030) and a higher muscle density was associated with a better overall survival (n = 3, HR: 2.12, 95% CI: 1.62−2.79, p < 0.001). Muscle measures were not significantly associated with surgical or chemotherapy-related outcomes. Conclusions: The prognostic value of baseline BMI for clinical outcomes is limited, but muscle mass and density may have more prognostic potential. High-quality studies with comprehensive reporting of results are required to improve our understanding of the prognostic value of body composition measures for clinical outcomes. Systematic review registration number: PROSPERO identifier CRD42020163058.

Indexed as

body compositiondietexercisemeta-analysisovarian cancer

Identifiers

PMID36230490
PMCPMC9559499

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.