ReviewBMJ open2026
Prehabilitation in adult cancer patients: an overview of systematic reviews.
Review in BMJ open, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesA growing body of evidence supports prehabilitation in cancer patients, but the findings have been inconsistent. This overview aimed to identify, evaluate and summarise the effect of prehabilitation on the clinical outcomes of cancer patients.
designOverview of systematic reviews. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Embase, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Cochrane Library and the JBI Evidence Synthesis database (Joanna Briggs Institute, University of Adelaide, Australia; hosted on Ovid) were searched from inception to January 2025. The search was updated in May 2026, and no new articles were included. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving adult cancer patients with a clinically established diagnosis who received prehabilitation interventions prior to surgical treatment. We excluded abstract-only citations, narrative reviews and scoping reviews. Reviews were excluded if ≥50% of the included studies were postoperative interventions, or if preoperative subgroup data could not be extracted. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two reviewers independently extracted data on participants' characteristics, types of interventions, outcomes, synthesising methods and pooled anticipated absolute/relative effects for outcomes meta-analysed. Two reviewers assessed methodological quality using the A MeaSurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR 2) tool and assessed the certainty of evidence for prehabilitation using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) framework. Overlap among included systematic reviews was quantified using the corrected covered area (CCA).
resultsTwenty systematic reviews (137 RCTs and 18 941 participants) were included. Low- to moderate-certainty evidence indicated that prehabilitation may improve preoperative physical fitness (eg, 6-minute walk test, preoperative cardiopulmonary function, preoperative lung function), reduce surgical complications and shorten the length of hospital stay. None of the included systematic reviews demonstrated a statistically significant effect on preoperative handgrip strength, 30-day readmission, mortality, anxiety or depression. Findings regarding physical activity and quality of life remained inconsistent. Overlap among included reviews was slight (CCA=4.15%).
conclusionsLow- to moderate-certainty evidence suggests that prehabilitation may improve preoperative physical fitness, reduce surgical complications and shorten the length of hospital stay in adult cancer patients undergoing surgery, whereas current evidence does not support a beneficial effect on 30-day readmission, mortality, quality of life or psychological status. Given the predominantly low-to-moderate certainty of the evidence and the methodological heterogeneity across the included systematic reviews, these findings should be interpreted with caution. Methodologically robust and transparently reported RCTs and systematic reviews are needed to strengthen the certainty of evidence and to inform clinical implementation of prehabilitation. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD 42024533214.
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.