Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41513879›Full record

SynthesisAnnals of surgical oncology2026

Rationales for Prehabilitation Programs in Patients Preparing for Oncologic Surgery: A Systematic Review.

Emine Akdemir, Wim G Groen, Maike G Sweegers, Bart C Bongers, Anne M May, Martijn M Stuiver, Wim H van Harten

Abstract readSystematic ReviewReview
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Annals of surgical oncology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Emine AkdemirDivision of Psychosocial Research and Epidemiology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Wim G GroenDepartment of Medicine for Older People, Amsterdam UMC, Location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Maike G SweegersDivision of Psychosocial Research and Epidemiology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Bart C BongersDepartment of Nutrition and Movement Sciences, Institute of Nutrition and Translational Research in Metabolism (NUTRIM), Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands.
Anne M MayDivision of Psychosocial Research and Epidemiology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Martijn M StuiverDivision of Psychosocial Research and Epidemiology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. m.stuiver@nki.nl.
Wim H van HartenDivision of Psychosocial Research and Epidemiology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPrehabilitation aims to improve patients' resilience to surgery and enhance postoperative recovery. Understanding rationales for prehabilitation content may identify opportunities for program optimization. This systematic review provides an overview of rationales, intervention, and outcomes used in prehabilitation studies in oncological populations. PATIENTS AND

methodsWe searched the databases MEDLINE, Embase, and Scopus on 1 March 2024. Comparative prehabilitation studies including patients undergoing oncological surgery were included. Prehabilitation was defined as a preoperative exercise program, alone or combined with other components, with the explicit aim of improving postoperative outcomes. Extracted outcomes included reported rationales, program content, and primary endpoints.

resultsIn total, 140 studies (N = 24,925 patients) were included. Most (N = 125, 89%) reported a rationale for improving physical fitness, particularly cardiorespiratory fitness (N = 97, 69%). Psychological (N = 46, 33%) and metabolic (N = 28, 20%) rationales were reported less frequently. Rationales for specific attributes (e.g., intensity) were rarely described. Exercise was predominantly supervised (N = 57, 41%), and of these supervised sessions, most were prescribed three times per week (N = 25, 44%). Almost all studies (N = 121, 86%) included anaerobic exercise component at moderate-intensity continuous (N = 39, 32%) or high-intensity interval (N = 34, 28%) mode. Intended duration varied from 1 to 12 weeks. Most reported primary endpoints were surgical outcomes (e.g., complications) (N = 59, 42%), although definitions varied.

conclusionsPreoperatively improving physical fitness is a widely used rationale for prehabilitation; however, studies are implicit in rationales for specific program components. Content and duration of prehabilitation showed considerable variation, often determined by feasibility and time to surgery. Prehabilitation studies could benefit from standardized outcomes. Adopting a more mechanistically grounded approach could improve program design and possibly effectiveness.

trial registrationThe review was preregistered in International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO; CRD42024512892).

Indexed as

Exercise TherapyNeoplasmsPreoperative CarePreoperative ExerciseHumansOncological surgeryPhysical exercisePrehabilitationRationalesSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID41513879
PMCPMC12901104

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.