Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37195433›Full record

ArticleSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2023

Efficacy of exercise interventions for women during and after gynaecological cancer treatment - a systematic scoping review.

Grace Laura Rose, Elizabeth Mary Stewart, Briana Kristine Clifford, Tom George Bailey, Alexandra Jane Rush, Claudia Rose Abbott, Sandra Christine Hayes, Andreas Obermair, Alexandra Leigh McCarthy

Open access · hybridAbstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 11% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. 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

9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Grace Laura RoseSchool of Human Movement and Nutrition Sciences, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia. grose1@usc.edu.au.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0420-0264
Elizabeth Mary StewartSchool of Human Movement and Nutrition Sciences, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.
Briana Kristine CliffordSchool of Human Movement and Nutrition Sciences, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.
Tom George BaileySchool of Human Movement and Nutrition Sciences, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.
Alexandra Jane RushSchool of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.
Claudia Rose AbbottSchool of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.
Sandra Christine HayesSchool of Health Sciences and Social Work, Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia.
Andreas ObermairSchool of Medicine, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.
Alexandra Leigh McCarthySchool of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia.
The University of Queensland · AUGriffith University · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo systematically synthesise evidence of exercise intervention efficacy for physical/psychosocial outcomes that matter to women during/following treatment for gynaecological cancer.

methodsFive databases were searched (PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsychInfo, Scopus). Exercise-only intervention studies that included women during/ following treatment for any gynaecological cancer, with/ without control comparison, on any physical or psychosocial outcome(s), were included and qualitatively appraised using the Revised Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and a modified Newcastle-Ottawa Scale.

resultsSeven randomised controlled trials (RCTs), three single-arm pre-post studies, and one prospective cohort study satisfied were included (11 studies). Most studies were completed following treatment (91%), included combined (aerobic and resistance; 36%) and aerobic (36%) training, were fully/mostly (63%) unsupervised, and had a moderate-to-high risk of bias. Overall, 33 outcomes (64% objectively-measured) were assessed. Improvements were observed in aerobic capacity (V̇O

conclusionPreliminary research into the role of exercise post-gynaecological cancer suggests an improvement in exercise capacity, muscular strength, and agility which, in the absence of exercise, typically decline following gynaecological cancer. Future exercise trials involving larger and more diverse gynaecological cancer samples will improve understanding of the potential and magnitude of effect of guideline-recommended exercise on outcomes that matter to patients.

Indexed as

ExerciseNeoplasmsExercise TherapyExercise ToleranceFemaleHumansMuscle StrengthQuality of Lifeagilitybody compositionfitnessoncologystrength

Identifiers

PMID37195433
PMCPMC10191940
OpenAlexW4376871456

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.