↓ Skip to main content

Exercise for women receiving adjuvant therapy for breast cancer

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
12 news outlets
blogs
1 blog
twitter
30 tweeters
facebook
7 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
67 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
333 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Exercise for women receiving adjuvant therapy for breast cancer
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, September 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd005001.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Anna C Furmaniak, Matthias Menig, Martina H Markes

Abstract

A huge clinical research database on adjuvant cancer treatment has verified improvements in breast cancer outcomes such as recurrence and mortality rates. On the other hand, adjuvant and neoadjuvant therapy with chemotherapy and radiotherapy impacts on quality of life due to substantial short- and long-term side effects. A number of studies have evaluated the effect of exercise interventions on those side effects. This is an updated version of the original Cochrane review published in 2006. The original review identified some benefits of physical activity on physical fitness and the resulting capacity for performing activities of daily life. It also identified a lack of evidence for other outcomes, providing clear justification for an updated review. To assess the effect of aerobic or resistance exercise interventions during adjuvant treatment for breast cancer on treatment-related side effects such as physical deterioration, fatigue, diminished quality of life, depression, and cognitive dysfunction. We carried out an updated search in the Cochrane Breast Cancer Group Specialised Register (30 March 2015), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (Issue 2, 2015), MEDLINE (1966 to 30 March 2015), and EMBASE (1966 to 30 March 2015). We did not update the original searches in CINAHL (1982 to 2004), SPORTDiscus (1975 to 2004), PsycINFO (1872 to 2003), SIGLE (1880 to 2004), and ProQuest Digital Dissertations (1861 to 2004). We searched the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP) and ClinicalTrials.gov for ongoing trials on 30 March 2015. We screened references in relevant reviews and published clinical trials. We included randomised controlled trials that examined aerobic or resistance exercise or both in women undergoing adjuvant treatment for breast cancer. Published and unpublished trials were eligible. Two review authors independently performed data extraction, assessed trials, and graded the methodological quality using Cochrane's 'Risk of bias' tool. Any disagreements were resolved through discussion or by consulting the third review author. We entered data into Review Manager for analysis. For outcomes assessed with a variety of instruments, we used the standardised mean difference (SMD) as a summary statistic for meta-analysis; for those assessed with the same instrument, we used the mean difference (MD). For this 2015 update we included a total of 32 studies with 2626 randomised women, 8 studies from the original search and 24 studies from the updated search. We found evidence that physical exercise during adjuvant treatment for breast cancer probably improves physical fitness (SMD 0.42, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.25 to 0.59; 15 studies; 1310 women; moderate-quality evidence) and slightly reduces fatigue (SMD -0.28, 95% CI -0.41 to -0.16; 19 studies; 1698 women; moderate-quality evidence). Exercise may lead to little or no improvement in health-related quality of life (MD 1.10, 95% CI -5.28 to 7.48; 1 study; 68 women; low-quality evidence), a slight improvement in cancer site-specific quality of life (MD 4.24, 95% CI -1.81 to 10.29; 4 studies; 262 women; low-quality evidence), and an improvement in cognitive function (MD -11.55, 95% CI -22.06 to -1.05; 2 studies; 213 women; low-quality evidence). Exercise probably leads to little or no difference in cancer-specific quality of life (SMD 0.12, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.25; 12 studies; 1012 women; moderate-quality evidence) and little or no difference in depression (SMD -0.15, 95% CI -0.30 to 0.01; 5 studies; 674 women; moderate-quality evidence). Evidence for other outcomes ranged from low to moderate quality. Seven trials reported a very small number of adverse events. Exercise during adjuvant treatment for breast cancer can be regarded as a supportive self care intervention that probably results in less fatigue, improved physical fitness, and little or no difference in cancer-specific quality of life and depression. Exercise may also slightly improve cancer site-specific quality of life and cognitive function, while it may result in little or no difference in health-related quality of life. This review is based on trials with a considerable degree of clinical heterogeneity regarding adjuvant cancer treatments and exercise interventions. Due to the difficulty of blinding exercise trials, all included trials were at high risk for performance bias. Furthermore, the majority of trials were at high risk for detection bias, largely due to most outcomes being self reported.The findings of the updated review have enabled us to make a more precise conclusion that both aerobic and resistance exercise can be regarded as beneficial for individuals with adjuvant therapy-related side effects. Further research is required to determine the optimal type, intensity, and timing of an exercise intervention. Furthermore, long-term evaluation is required due to possible long-term side effects of adjuvant treatment.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 30 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 333 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 2 <1%
Denmark 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Colombia 1 <1%
Germany 1 <1%
Unknown 325 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 62 19%
Student > Bachelor 57 17%
Unspecified 54 16%
Student > Ph. D. Student 51 15%
Researcher 37 11%
Other 72 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 99 30%
Unspecified 81 24%
Nursing and Health Professions 56 17%
Psychology 27 8%
Sports and Recreations 26 8%
Other 44 13%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 116. 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 22 August 2018.
All research outputs
#120,840
of 12,845,104 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#268
of 10,441 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,372
of 265,239 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#8
of 185 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,845,104 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,441 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 265,239 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 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 185 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 95% of its contemporaries.