ReviewArchives of rehabilitation research and clinical translation2026
Effects of Resistance Training on Breast Cancer-Related Lymphedema: A Meta-Analysis.
Review in Archives of rehabilitation research and clinical translation, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
- Precision Exercise for Breast Cancer-Related Outcomes: Towards Personalised Training Based on Tumour, Treatment and Patient Characteristics.Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: To determine the effectiveness of resistance training (RT) on the incidence, severity, and objective physiological indicators of breast cancer-related lymphedema (BCRL), and to assess its impact on limb function. Data sources: A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Medline, Sinomed, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang, VIP Information Co., Ltd. (VIP), and the Chinese Medical Journal full-text database from inception to August 1, 2025. Study Selection: Randomized controlled trials involving adults with breast cancer who were at risk of or had established BCRL, and comparing RT with nonresistance exercise, usual care, or alternative management approaches. A total of 38 Randomized controlled trials involving 4843 patients were included. Data Extraction: Two reviewers independently screened the studies, extracted data using a standardized form, and assessed the risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool. Data Synthesis: Statistical analyses were performed using RevMan 5.4. RT significantly reduced the incidence of lymphedema (odds ratio [OR]=0.25, 95% CI, 0.19-0.32) and moderate-to-severe lymphedema (OR=0.21, 95% CI, 0.16-0.29). It also decreased upper limb volume (mean difference [MD]=-152.37, 95% CI, -153.81 to -150.94) and circumference differences (MD=-1.51, 95% CI, -1.62 to -1.41), while improving lymphatic drainage volume (MD=5.03, 95% CI, 4.67-5.39) and the rate of excellent or good limb function (OR=4.23, 95% CI, 2.72-6.57). Subgroup analyses revealed that a short-duration, high-frequency training paradigm and combined therapy regimens produced the most pronounced protective effects. Conclusions: RT is a safe and effective intervention that significantly reduces the risk and severity of BCRL while improving limb volume, lymphatic function, and shoulder mobility. For optimal benefit in clinical practice, progressive RT should be delivered using a "short-duration, high-frequency" model integrated into combined therapy protocols.
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.