Breast cancer-related lymphedema is a common and debilitating side effect of cancer treatment. This randomized trial compared the effect of progressive resistance- or aerobic-based exercise on breast cancer-related lymphedema extent and severity, as well as participants' muscular strength and endurance, aerobic fitness, body composition, upper-body function and quality of life.
Women with a clinical diagnosis of stable unilateral, upper-limb lymphedema secondary to breast cancer were randomly allocated to a resistance- (n=21) or aerobic-based (n=20) exercise group (12-week intervention). Women were assessed pre-, post- and 12 weeks post-intervention, with generalised estimating equation models used to compare over time changes in each group's lymphedema (two-tailed p<0.05).
Lymphedema remained stable in both groups (as measured by bioimpedance spectroscopy and circumferences), with no significant differences between groups noted in lymphedema status. There was a significant (p<0.01) time by group effect for upper-body strength (assessed using 4-6 repetition maximum bench press), with the resistance-based exercise group increasing strength by 4.2 kg (3.2, 5.2) post-intervention compared to 1.2 kg (-0.1, 2.5) in the aerobic-based exercise group. Although not supported statistically, the aerobic-based exercise group reported a clinically relevant decline in number of symptoms post-intervention (-1.5 [-2.6, -0.3]), and women in both exercise groups experienced clinically meaningful improvements in lower-body endurance, aerobic fitness and quality of life by 12-week follow-up.
Participating in resistance- or aerobic-based exercise did not change lymphedema status, but led to clinically relevant improvements in function and quality of life, with findings suggesting that neither mode is superior with respect to lymphoedema impact. As such, personal preferences, survivorship concerns and functional needs are important and relevant considerations when prescribing exercise mode to those with secondary lymphedema.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 26 September 2022.
All research outputs
#9,284,015
of 34,297,219 outputs
Outputs from Medicine and Science in Sports & Exercise
#4,158
of 8,562 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#97,178
of 338,141 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Medicine and Science in Sports & Exercise
#61
of 81 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,297,219 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,562 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 26.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 51% 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 338,141 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 71% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 81 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
