Purpose: Fatigue is a common and potentially disabling symptom in patients with cancer. It can often be effectively reduced by exercise. Yet, effects of exercise interventions might differ across subgroups. We conducted a meta-analysis using individual patient data of randomized controlled trials (RCT) to investigate moderators of exercise intervention effects on cancer-related fatigue. Methods: We used individual patient data from 31 exercise RCT worldwide, representing 4366 patients, of whom 3846 had complete fatigue data. We performed a one-step individual patient data meta-analysis, using linear mixed-effect models to analyze the effects of exercise interventions on fatigue (z score) and to identify demographic, clinical, intervention- A nd exercise-related moderators. Models were adjusted for baseline fatigue and included a random intercept on study level to account for clustering of patients within studies. We identified potential moderators by testing their interaction with group allocation, using a likelihood ratio test. Results: Exercise interventions had statistically significant beneficial effects on fatigue (β =-0.17; 95% confidence interval [CI],-0.22 to-0.12). There was no evidence of moderation by demographic or clinical characteristics. Supervised exercise interventions had significantly larger effects on fatigue than unsupervised exercise interventions (βdifference =-0.18; 95% CI-0.28 to-0.08). Supervised interventions with a duration ≤12 wk showed larger effects on fatigue (β =-0.29; 95% CI,-0.39 to-0.20) than supervised interventions with a longer duration. Conclusions: In this individual patient data meta-analysis, we found statistically significant beneficial effects of exercise interventions on fatigue, irrespective of demographic and clinical characteristics. These findings support a role for exercise, preferably supervised exercise interventions, in clinical practice. Reasons for differential effects in duration require further exploration.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 28. 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 07 February 2020.
All research outputs
#1,802,960
of 34,518,599 outputs
Outputs from Medicine and Science in Sports & Exercise
#1,479
of 8,656 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#28,711
of 380,182 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Medicine and Science in Sports & Exercise
#17
of 72 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,518,599 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,656 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 26.1. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% 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 380,182 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 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 72 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.
