Trial reportBMC cancer2026
Perceived exertion for guiding and monitoring exercise intensity in unsupervised, home-based cancer rehabilitation: an analysis of 3533 exercise sessions.
Trial report in BMC cancer, 2026. 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundExercise therapy is an essential part of cancer rehabilitation. Home-based, unsupervised exercise programs supported by digital tools offer a promising way to reduce access barriers. However, guiding and monitoring exercise intensity without supervision remains difficult. Rating of perceived exertion (RPE) is often used for this purpose, but its validity in unsupervised, home-based settings has not been systematically examined. In this analysis, we evaluated whether RPE can guide and reflect objective exercise intensity, and explored factors influencing their alignment.
methodsWe conducted a secondary analysis using data from the intervention group of a multicenter randomized controlled trial. Seventy-six cancer survivors (breast, colorectal, or prostate cancer) followed a six-month, unsupervised, home-based, video-guided exercise program (2 × 30 min/week of individually tailored strength-endurance with different body-weight exercises). Heart rate (HR) during training sessions was recorded via chest strap. After each session, participants reported RPE for overall intensity using the Borg category-ratio 10 scale. We used mixed-effects models to examine the relationship between RPE and session-mean relative exercise intensity (%HRmax), and to identify factors including age, sex, beta-blocker use, and training week (the sequential week of the intervention), influencing discrepancies between perceived and HR-based intensity. Cross-tabulations assessed how accurately RPE identified sessions within guideline-recommended intensity ranges.
resultsIn total, 3533 exercise sessions were analyzed. RPE was positively associated with %HRmax (B = 1.64, p < 0.001, marginal R² = 0.066, intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.60). RPE identified sessions within guideline recommendations with a sensitivity of 87.4% and a specificity of 22.3%. Discrepancies between perceived and HR-based intensity were systematically associated with age (B = 0.037, p < 0.001), sex (B = 0.64, p < 0.001), beta-blocker use (B = − 0.39, p < 0.001), and training week (B = 0.032, p < 0.001).
conclusionsRPE may help guide exercise intensity in unsupervised, home-based training for cancer survivors, but its limited alignment with physiological load may make it insufficient for precise monitoring. Objective feedback, such as HR monitoring, is needed to ensure adequate intensity in unsupervised settings. Future studies should explore factors influencing perceived exertion and test RPE across different exercise modalities.
trial registrationDRKS-ID: DRKS00020499; Registered 17 March 2020; https://drks.de/search/en/trial/DRKS00020499 .
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.