SynthesisBMC public health2026
Comparative efficacy of different exercise interventions for cancer-related fatigue, health-related quality of life, anxiety and depression symptoms in cancer survivors: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC public health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCancer survivors commonly experience persistent treatment-related symptoms including fatigue, reduced health-related quality of life (HRQoL), anxiety, depression, and physical function decline. Whilst exercise broadly benefits survivors, the comparative efficacy of specific exercise modalities remains insufficiently characterised to inform modality-specific clinical prescription. This network meta-analysis evaluated the comparative effectiveness of aerobic exercise (AE), resistance training (RT), combined aerobic-resistance training (CART), and mind–body exercises (MBE) across five symptom domains in cancer survivors.
methodsSystematic searches were conducted across MEDLINE, Scopus, CENTRAL, SPORTDiscus, and Web of Science. Eligible randomised controlled trials compared AE, RT, CART, or MBE against control conditions in adult cancer survivors (≥ 3 months post-treatment). Primary outcomes were cancer-related fatigue (CRF) and HRQoL; secondary outcomes were depression, patient-reported physical functioning, and objective cardiorespiratory fitness. Anxiety was examined via pairwise meta-analysis. Bayesian random-effects network meta-analysis was performed in RStudio, with treatment rankings quantified using SUCRA. GRADE was applied to primary outcomes.
resultsFifty-seven trials involving 5,675 participants formed the evidence networks. For CRF, all modalities produced positive estimates relative to usual care. MBE ranked highest (SMD = 1.02, 95% CrI: 0.53 to 1.51; P-score = 0.97) and AE produced a statistically significant moderate effect (SMD = 0.54, 95% CrI: 0.10 to 0.98); however, substantial heterogeneity (I2 = 90.9%) and significant network inconsistency warrant cautious interpretation of fatigue rankings. GRADE certainty was moderate for AE and CART, and low for MBE and RT. For HRQoL, AE ranked first (SMD = 0.71, 95% CrI: 0.37 to 1.06; P-score = 0.92) with moderate certainty, and CART produced a significantly small-to-moderate effect (SMD = 0.34, 95% CrI: 0.05 to 0.63). CART demonstrated consistent benefits for patient-reported physical functioning (SMD = 0.53, 95% CrI: 0.29 to 0.76) and cardiorespiratory fitness (SMD = 0.55, 95% CrI: 0.14 to 0.96). Depression benefits were directionally consistent but non-significant across all modalities. Pairwise meta-analysis indicated a small but significant overall reduction in anxiety with exercise (SMD = -0.24, 95% CI: -0.47 to -0.01).
conclusionsAll exercise modalities confer meaningful benefits across cancer survivorship outcomes, with intervention-specific advantages informative for symptom-guided prescription. AE demonstrated the most robust HRQoL benefits, CART produced the broadest physical functioning profile, and MBE ranked highest for fatigue, though with low certainty evidence. Modality selection guided by individual symptom priorities and patient preferences within existing clinical guidelines is supported by current comparative evidence. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: INPLASY2025110092.
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.