| Title |
Preoperative exercise therapy for gastrointestinal cancer patients: a systematic review
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Systematic Reviews, July 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13643-018-0771-0 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Sarah A. Vermillion, Alston James, Robert D. Dorrell, Peter Brubaker, Shannon L. Mihalko, Adrienne R. Hill, Clancy J. Clark |
| Abstract |
Gastrointestinal cancer patients are susceptible to significant postoperative morbidity. The aim of this systematic review was to examine the effects of preoperative exercise therapy (PET) on patients undergoing surgery for GI malignancies. In accordance with PRISMA statement, all prospective clinical trials of PET for patients diagnosed with GI cancer were identified by searching MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, ProQuest, PROSPERO, and DARE (March 8, 2017). The characteristics and outcomes of each study were extracted and reviewed. Risk of bias was evaluated using the Cochrane risk of bias tool by two independent reviewers. Nine studies (534 total patients) were included in the systematic review. All interventions involved aerobic training but varied in terms of frequency, duration, and intensity. PET was effective in reducing heart rate, as well as increasing oxygen consumption and peak power output. The postoperative course was also improved, as PET was associated with more rapid recovery to baseline functional capacity after surgery. PET for surgical patients with gastrointestinal malignancies may improve physical fitness and aid in postoperative recovery. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 45 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 9 | 20% |
| United States | 7 | 16% |
| Canada | 4 | 9% |
| Australia | 2 | 4% |
| Portugal | 2 | 4% |
| Germany | 1 | 2% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 2% |
| Brazil | 1 | 2% |
| Sweden | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 16 | 36% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 31 | 69% |
| Scientists | 8 | 18% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 6 | 13% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 116 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 116 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 21 | 18% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 15 | 13% |
| Student > Bachelor | 12 | 10% |
| Other | 9 | 8% |
| Researcher | 8 | 7% |
| Other | 20 | 17% |
| Unknown | 31 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 36 | 31% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 21 | 18% |
| Sports and Recreations | 10 | 9% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 3% |
| Psychology | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 8 | 7% |
| Unknown | 36 | 31% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 36. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 March 2020.
All research outputs
#964,760
of 23,096,849 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#132
of 2,010 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#22,656
of 329,806 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#4
of 49 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,096,849 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 95th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,010 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.8. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 329,806 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 49 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.