4.5 Article

Efficacy of Exercise Interventions in Modulating Cancer-Related Fatigue among Adult Cancer Survivors: A Meta-Analysis

期刊

CANCER EPIDEMIOLOGY BIOMARKERS & PREVENTION
卷 20, 期 1, 页码 123-133

出版社

AMER ASSOC CANCER RESEARCH
DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-10-0988

关键词

-

资金

  1. University of Connecticut Research Foundation [433527]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: The purpose of this meta-analysis was to explore the efficacy of exercise as a nonpharmacologic intervention to reduce cancer-related fatigue (CRF) among adult cancer survivors. We also investigated how different components of the exercise prescription (Ex R-x), methodologic considerations, and subject characteristics modulate CRF. Methods: A systematic search for randomized controlled trials was conducted using words related to cancer, exercise, and fatigue. Results: In total, 44 studies with 48 interventions qualified, including 3,254 participants of varying cancer types, stages of diagnosis, treatments, and exercise interventions. Cancer survivors in exercise interventions reduced their CRF levels to a greater extent than usual care controls, d(+) = 0.31 (95% CI = 0.22-0.40), an effect that appeared to generalize across several types of cancer. CRF levels improved in direct proportion to the intensity of resistance exercise (beta = 0.60, P = 0.01), a pattern that was stronger in higher quality studies (beta = 0.23, P < 0.05). CRF levels also reduced to a greater extent when interventions were theoretically driven (beta = 0.48, P < 0.001) or cancer survivors were older (beta = 0.24, P = 0.04). Conclusions: Exercise reduced CRF especially in programs that involved moderate-intensity, resistance exercise among older cancer survivors and that were guided by theory. Impact: Our results indicate exercise interventions for adult cancer survivors should be multi-dimensional and individualized according to health outcome and cancer type. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 20(1); 123-33. (C) 2011 AACR.

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

4.5
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