+ Site Statistics
+ Search Articles
+ PDF Full Text Service
How our service works
Request PDF Full Text
+ Follow Us
Follow on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
Follow on LinkedIn
+ Subscribe to Site Feeds
Most Shared
PDF Full Text
+ Translate
+ Recently Requested

A Systematic Review of Exercise Systematic Reviews in the Cancer Literature (2005-2017)



A Systematic Review of Exercise Systematic Reviews in the Cancer Literature (2005-2017)



Pm and R 9(9s2): S347-S384



Evidence supports the benefits of exercise for patients with cancer; however, specific guidance for clinical decision making regarding exercise timing, frequency, duration, and intensity is lacking. Efforts are needed to optimize clinical recommendations for exercise in the cancer population. To aggregate information regarding the benefit of exercise through a systematic review of existing systematic reviews in the cancer exercise literature. PubMed, CINAHL Plus, Scopus, Web of Science, and EMBASE. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of the impact of movement-based exercise on the adult cancer population. Two author teams reviewed 302 abstracts for inclusion with 93 selected for full-text review. A total of 53 studies were analyzed. A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) was used as a quality measure of the reviews. Information was extracted using the PICO format (ie, participants, intervention, comparison, outcomes). Descriptive findings are reported. Mean AMSTAR score = 7.66/11 (±2.04) suggests moderate quality of the systematic reviews. Exercise is beneficial before, during, and after cancer treatment, across all cancer types, and for a variety of cancer-related impairments. Moderate-to-vigorous exercise is the best level of exercise intensity to improve physical function and mitigate cancer-related impairments. Therapeutic exercises are beneficial to manage treatment side effects, may enhance tolerance to cancer treatments, and improve functional outcomes. Supervised exercise yielded superior benefits versus unsupervised. Serious adverse events were not common. Movement-based exercise intervention outcomes are reported. No analysis of pooled effects was calculated across reviews due to significant heterogeneity within the systematic reviews. Findings do not consider exercise in advanced cancers or pediatric populations. Exercise promotes significant improvements in clinical, functional, and in some populations, survival outcomes and can be recommended regardless of the type of cancer. Although generally safe, patients should be screened and appropriate precautions taken. Efforts to strengthen uniformity in clinical trial reporting, develop clinical practice guidelines, and integrate exercise and rehabilitation services into the cancer delivery system are needed.

Please choose payment method:






(PDF emailed within 0-6 h: $19.90)

Accession: 059421284

Download citation: RISBibTeXText

PMID: 28942909

DOI: 10.1016/j.pmrj.2017.07.074


Related references

Exercise and cancer-related fatigue in adults: a systematic review of previous systematic reviews with meta-analyses. Bmc Cancer 17(1): 693, 2018

Systematic review of systematic reviews of acupuncture published 1996-2005. Clinical Medicine 6(4): 381-386, 2006

A Critical Review of Search Strategies Used in Recent Systematic Reviews Published in Selected Prosthodontic and Implant-Related Journals: Are Systematic Reviews Actually Systematic?. International Journal of Prosthodontics 30(1): 13-21, 2017

Not all systematic reviews are systematic: a meta-review of the quality of systematic reviews for non-invasive remote monitoring in heart failure. Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare 19(6): 326-337, 2014

Strategies to promote the impact of systematic reviews on healthcare policy: a systematic review of the literature. Evidence & Policy A Journal of Research Debate and Practice 7(4): 403-428, 2011

Salutogenically focused outcomes in systematic reviews of intrapartum interventions: a systematic review of systematic reviews. Midwifery 30(4): E151-E156, 2016

Methodologic Quality of Systematic Reviews Published in the Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery Literature: A Systematic Review. Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery 137(1): 225e-236e, 2016

Effectiveness of Pilates exercise in treating people with chronic low back pain: a systematic review of systematic reviews. Bmc Medical Research Methodology 13: 7, 2013

Methods for systematic reviews of health economic evaluations: a systematic review, comparison, and synthesis of method literature. Medical Decision Making 34(7): 826-840, 2015

Impact of findings from grey literature on the outcomes of systematic reviews on interventions to prevent obesity among children: a systematic review. Jbi Library of Systematic Reviews 10(56 Suppl.): 1-14, 2012

The top-cited systematic reviews/meta-analyses in tuberculosis research: A PRISMA-compliant systematic literature review and bibliometric analysis. Medicine 96(6): E4822, 2017

Prosthetic interventions for people with transtibial amputation: Systematic review and meta-analysis of high-quality prospective literature and systematic reviews. Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development 53(2): 157-184, 2018

Not All Systematic Reviews are Systematic: A Meta-review of the Quality of Current Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses for Remote Monitoring in Heart Failure. Heart Lung & Circulation 22: S84-S85, 2013

Educational interventions for cancer pain. A systematic review of systematic reviews with nested narrative review of randomized controlled trials. Patient Education and Counseling 98(3): 269-282, 2016

Gray literature in systematic reviews on population health in the Middle East and North Africa: protocol of an overview of systematic reviews and evidence mapping. Systematic Reviews 7(1): 94, 2018