| Title |
Resistance exercise and secondary lymphedema in breast cancer survivors—a systematic review
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Supportive Care in Cancer, December 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00520-015-3068-z |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
M. Keilani, T. Hasenoehrl, M. Neubauer, R. Crevenna |
| Abstract |
The aim of the present review was to determine effects of strength exercise on secondary lymphedema in breast cancer patients. Research was conducted by using the databases PubMed/Medline and Embase. Randomized controlled trials published from January 1966 to May 2015 investigating the effects of resistance exercise on breast cancer patients with or at risk of secondary lymphedema in accordance with the American College of Sports Medicine exercise guidelines for cancer survivors were included in the present study. Nine original articles with a total of 957 patients met the inclusion criteria. None of the included articles showed adverse effects of a resistance exercise intervention on lymphedema status. In all included studies, resistance exercise intensity was described as moderate to high. Strength exercise seems not to have negative effects on lymphedema status or might not increase risk of development of lymphedema in breast cancer patients. Further research is needed in order to investigate the effects of resistance exercise for patients suffering from lymphedema. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 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 | 1 | 20% |
| United States | 1 | 20% |
| Unknown | 3 | 60% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 40% |
| Scientists | 2 | 40% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 20% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 220 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Malaysia | 1 | <1% |
| Portugal | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 218 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 33 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 28 | 13% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 24 | 11% |
| Researcher | 22 | 10% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 12 | 5% |
| Other | 41 | 19% |
| Unknown | 60 | 27% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 47 | 21% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 44 | 20% |
| Sports and Recreations | 32 | 15% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 5 | 2% |
| Psychology | 5 | 2% |
| Other | 15 | 7% |
| Unknown | 72 | 33% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. 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 29 May 2019.
All research outputs
#5,892,638
of 22,836,570 outputs
Outputs from Supportive Care in Cancer
#1,389
of 4,584 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#93,437
of 393,178 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Supportive Care in Cancer
#35
of 75 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,836,570 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,584 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 69% 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 393,178 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 75 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its contemporaries.