ArticleCurrent oncology (Toronto, Ont.)2025
Not All Cancer Survivors Respond to a 4-Week mHealth Exercise Fatigue Intervention: Who Are the Responders?
Article in Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Cancer-related fatigue (CRF) is prevalent and onerous for cancer survivors. Not all survivors respond equally to interventions, but the characteristics distinguishing responders and non-responders are often unknown. This secondary analysis study compared baseline characteristics for responders (CRF reduction ≥2 points), non-responders, and those lost to follow-up using data from a two-group pre-test/post-test trial of a four-week exercise intervention compared to usual care. Included were 278 adult cancer survivors, with a mean age of 52.2 ± 11.9, 65% (180/278) female, and 90% (250/278) Caucasian. Of these, 77 (28%) were responders, 153 (55%) were non-responders, and 48 (17%) were lost to follow-up. At baseline, participants completed the 6-item Schwartz Cancer Fatigue Scale, with responses from 1 (not at all) to 5 (extremely fatigued) and a total score ranging 6-30. In the intervention group, 35% (49/141) reported decreased fatigue, 24% (34/141) reported increased fatigue, 25% (35/141) had minimal change, and 16% (23/141) were lost to follow-up. In the control group, 20% (28/137) reported decreased fatigue, 39% (53/137) reported increased fatigue, 23% (31/137) had minimal change, and 18% (25/137) were lost to follow-up. Responders in both groups reported higher baseline fatigue than non-responders, with mean differences of 5.2 (95% CI: 3.6-6.8) and 5.4 (95% CI: 3.4-7.3) for intervention and usual care, respectively. Higher baseline fatigue was found in responders compared to non-responders, regardless of group assignment, suggesting that those with a greater fatigue burden may have derived more benefit from exercise for CRF or a regression to the mean effect.
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.