School of Health Sciences, HES-SO Valais-Wallis, University of Applied Sciences and Arts Western Switzerland Valais, Leukerbad, Switzerland.
Institute of Physiotherapy, Zurich University of Applied Sciences, Winterthur, Switzerland.
Br J Sports Med. 2018 May;52(10):651-658. doi: 10.1136/bjsports-2016-096422. Epub 2017 May 13.
To assess the relative effects of different types of exercise and other non-pharmaceutical interventions on cancer-related fatigue (CRF) in patients during and after cancer treatment.
Systematic review and indirect-comparisons meta-analysis.
Articles were searched in PubMed, Cochrane CENTRAL and published meta-analyses.
Randomised studies published up to January 2017 evaluating different types of exercise or other non-pharmaceutical interventions to reduce CRF in any cancer type during or after treatment.
Risk of bias assessment with PEDro criteria and random effects Bayesian network meta-analysis.
We included 245 studies. Comparing the treatments with usual care during cancer treatment, relaxation exercise was the highest ranked intervention with a standardisedmean difference (SMD) of -0.77 (95% Credible Interval (CrI) -1.22 to -0.31), while massage (-0.78; -1.55 to -0.01), cognitive-behavioural therapy combined with physical activity (combined CBT, -0.72; -1.34 to -0.09), combined aerobic and resistance training (-0.67; -1.01 to -0.34), resistance training (-0.53; -1.02 to -0.03), aerobic (-0.53; -0.80 to -0.26) and yoga (-0.51; -1.01 to 0.00) all had moderate-to-large SMDs. After cancer treatment, yoga showed the highest effect (-0.68; -0.93 to -0.43). Combined aerobic and resistance training (-0.50; -0.66 to -0.34), combined CBT (-0.45; -0.70 to -0.21), Tai-Chi (-0.45; -0.84 to -0.06), CBT (-0.42; -0.58 to -0.25), resistance training (-0.35; -0.62 to -0.08) and aerobic (-0.33; -0.51 to -0.16) showed all small-to-moderate SMDs.
Patients can choose among different effective types of exercise and non-pharmaceutical interventions to reduce CRF.
评估不同类型的运动和其他非药物干预措施对癌症治疗期间和治疗后癌症相关疲劳(CRF)的相对影响。
系统评价和间接比较荟萃分析。
在 PubMed、Cochrane 中心和已发表的荟萃分析中检索文章。
评价不同类型运动或其他非药物干预措施以减轻任何癌症类型治疗期间或治疗后 CRF 的随机研究,截止日期为 2017 年 1 月。
采用 PEDro 标准评估偏倚风险和随机效应贝叶斯网络荟萃分析。
共纳入 245 项研究。与癌症治疗期间的常规护理相比,放松运动是最高效的干预措施,标准化均数差值(SMD)为-0.77(95%可信区间[CrI]为-1.22 至-0.31),而按摩(-0.78;-1.55 至-0.01)、认知行为疗法联合体力活动(联合 CBT,-0.72;-1.34 至-0.09)、联合有氧和抗阻训练(-0.67;-1.01 至-0.34)、抗阻训练(-0.53;-1.02 至-0.03)、有氧训练(-0.53;-0.80 至-0.26)和瑜伽(-0.51;-1.01 至 0.00)均具有中等至较大的 SMD。癌症治疗后,瑜伽显示出最高的疗效(-0.68;-0.93 至-0.43)。联合有氧和抗阻训练(-0.50;-0.66 至-0.34)、联合 CBT(-0.45;-0.70 至-0.21)、太极(-0.45;-0.84 至-0.06)、CBT(-0.42;-0.58 至-0.25)、抗阻训练(-0.35;-0.62 至-0.08)和有氧训练(-0.33;-0.51 至-0.16)均显示出较小至中等的 SMD。
患者可以选择不同有效的运动和非药物干预措施来减轻 CRF。