4.6 Review

Effects of aerobic exercise on cancer-related fatigue: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

期刊

SUPPORTIVE CARE IN CANCER
卷 24, 期 2, 页码 969-983

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00520-015-2953-9

关键词

Aerobic exercise; Cancer-related fatigue; Meta-analysis

资金

  1. Health-X Seed Grant (China Medical Board Grant) of the Global Health Institute, Fudan University [13-131]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Cancer-related fatigue (CRF) is the most commonly reported and most distressing symptom in cancer patients. Currently, there are no effective strategies for managing this condition. The purpose of this study is to compare the effects of aerobic exercise on CRF with the standard of care. A systematic search for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was performed using the Cochrane Library, JBI Library, Embase, MEDLINE, Web of Science, China Biology Medicine (CBM), and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI). The risk of bias was critically evaluated, and data were independently extracted by two reviewers. All of the analyses were performed using Review Manager 5. A total of 26 qualified studies that included 2830 participants (aerobic exercise, 1426; control, 1404) were included in the meta-analysis. Cancer patients who completed adjuvant therapy in the aerobic exercise group reported reduced CRF levels relative to patients undergoing the standard of care. Aerobic exercise had a moderate effect on CRF for patients not currently undergoing anticancer treatment. Supervised aerobic exercise, exercise for 20-30 min/session, or exercise three times/week had a small effect on CRF. Exercise for 50 min/session or exercise two sessions/week had a significant effect on patient CRF, whereas 8 weeks of exercise had a moderate effect. Aerobic exercise is effective for the management of CRF, especially for patients who have completed adjuvant therapy. Cancer patients can make more informed choices regarding their cancer-related fatigue management based on the best available evidence.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据