Department of Physiotherapy, Faculty of Health Sciences, European University of Valencia, Valencia, Spain; Exercise Intervention for Health Research Group (EXINH-RG), Department of Physiotherapy, University of Valencia, Valencia, Spain.
Exercise Intervention for Health Research Group (EXINH-RG), Department of Physiotherapy, University of Valencia, Valencia, Spain.
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2023 Aug;104(8):1331-1342. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2023.01.008. Epub 2023 Feb 1.
To assess and compare the effectiveness of different exercise modalities in reducing cancer-related fatigue (CRF) in patients with cancer undergoing chemotherapy. Exercise intensities for selected exercise types were also compared.
We conducted a search in MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Scopus, SPORTDiscus, and Web of Science from inception to October 15, 2021.
Randomized controlled trials concerning the effectiveness of exercise modalities on CRF in patients with cancer undergoing chemotherapy were included.
Study characteristics were extracted using a structured protocol. Methodological quality was assessed employing the PEDro scale and risk of bias was assessed using the Revised Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool for Randomized Trials. The certainty of evidence was assessed based on Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation. The measure of effect used was the adjusted standardized mean difference (SMD) or Hedge's g, together with the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI).
Forty-seven studies were included. Data were pooled employing a random-effects model. There was a trend that adding low-intensity aerobic and resistance exercise (SMD=1.28, 95% CI -0.18; 2.75, P=.086), or moderate-intensity aerobic and resistance exercise (SMD=0.85; 95% CI -0.12; 1.82, P=.087), was more effective than adding flexibility training to usual care (UC). There was also a trend that UC alone was less effective than adding moderate-intensity aerobic and resistance exercise (SMD=-0.47, 95% CI -0.96, 0.02, P=.060) to UC.
The addition of low- to moderate-intensity aerobic and/or resistance exercise demonstrated a positive trend for improvement in CRF in patients with cancer undergoing chemotherapy, when compared with UC alone or UC with flexibility training.
评估和比较不同运动方式在减轻癌症化疗患者相关疲劳(CRF)方面的效果。还比较了选定运动类型的运动强度。
我们检索了 MEDLINE、Embase、CINAHL、Scopus、SPORTDiscus 和 Web of Science 从建库至 2021 年 10 月 15 日的数据。
纳入了关于运动方式对癌症化疗患者 CRF 影响的随机对照试验。
使用结构化方案提取研究特征。使用 PEDro 量表评估方法学质量,使用修订后的 Cochrane 随机试验偏倚风险工具评估偏倚风险。根据推荐评估、制定与评价(GRADE)评估证据确定性。使用调整后的标准化均数差(SMD)或 Hedge's g 及其相应的 95%置信区间(CI)来衡量效应。
纳入了 47 项研究。使用随机效应模型进行数据分析。结果表明,与 UC 相比,添加低强度有氧运动和抗阻运动(SMD=1.28,95%CI -0.18;2.75,P=.086)或中等强度有氧运动和抗阻运动(SMD=0.85;95%CI -0.12;1.82,P=.087)可能更有效;UC 单独应用的效果不如 UC 联合中等强度有氧运动和抗阻运动(SMD=-0.47,95%CI -0.96,0.02,P=.060)。
与 UC 单独或 UC 联合柔韧性训练相比,添加低到中等强度有氧运动和/或抗阻运动可能对改善癌症化疗患者的 CRF 有积极作用。