| Title |
Exercise interventions for cancer patients: systematic review of controlled trials
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cancer Causes & Control, December 2004
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10552-004-1325-4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Clare Stevinson, Debbie A Lawlor, Kenneth R Fox |
| Abstract |
To systematically review controlled trials investigating the effects of exercise interventions in cancer patients. Studies were located through searching seven electronic databases (Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, CancerLit, PsycInfo, Cinahl, SportDiscus), scanning reference lists of relevant articles, contacting experts (n = 20), and checking the contents lists of journals available through ZETOC (Electronic Table of Contents). To be included, trials had to be prospective, controlled, involve participants diagnosed with cancer and test an exercise intervention. Types of outcome were not restricted. Two reviewers independently applied the selection criteria. Thirty-three controlled trials (including 25 randomized trials) were included in the review. There was some evidence that physical function was increased among those who exercised. Furthermore, symptoms of fatigue did not appear to be increased and there were few adverse effects reported. There was insufficient evidence to determine effects on other outcomes, such as quality of life, with results hampered by the heterogeneity between studies as well as poor methodological quality. Data were also lacking on the long term effects of exercise relating to cancer recurrence or survival. There is preliminary evidence that exercise interventions for cancer patients can lead to moderate increases in physical function and are not associated with increased symptoms of fatigue. However, it is impossible from current evidence to determine whether exercise has long term beneficial effects on survival or quality of life. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 130 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Canada | 2 | 2% |
| Australia | 1 | <1% |
| Indonesia | 1 | <1% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 124 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 22 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 20 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 19 | 15% |
| Researcher | 12 | 9% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 8 | 6% |
| Other | 24 | 18% |
| Unknown | 25 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 36 | 28% |
| Sports and Recreations | 31 | 24% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 10 | 8% |
| Psychology | 10 | 8% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 3% |
| Other | 12 | 9% |
| Unknown | 27 | 21% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 01 January 2007.
All research outputs
#7,916,538
of 23,854,458 outputs
Outputs from Cancer Causes & Control
#950
of 2,187 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#37,442
of 144,408 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cancer Causes & Control
#4
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,854,458 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,187 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.2. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 144,408 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 6 of them.