The Effect of Physical Exercise on Cancer-related Fatigue during Cancer Treatment: a Meta-analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials

BackgroundModerate-to-severe cancer-related fatigue occurs in 45% of patients with cancer and interferes with many aspects of quality of life. Although physical exercise has level 1 evidence for improvement of cancer-related fatigue, it has a relatively high behavioural demand compared with other non-pharmacological interventions. The aim of this updated meta-analysis was to address the efficacy of light therapy in improving cancer-related fatigue in patients with cancer.MethodsWe included randomised controlled trials investigating the efficacy of bright white light (BWL) therapy in ameliorating cancer-related fatigue in patients with cancer. This meta-analysis was conducted using a random-effects model. The target outcomes were changes in cancer-related fatigue associated with BWL or dim red light (DRL).ResultsThere were 9 articles with 231 participants included. The main results revealed that daily morning BWL for 30 min was associated with significantly better improvement in fatigue severity compared with DRL (k=5, Hedges’ g=−0.414, 95% CI −0.740 to −0.087, p=0.013). The subgroup without psychiatric comorbidities (k=4, Hedges’ g=−0.479, 95% CI −0.801 to −0.156, p=0.004) was associated with significantly better improvement in fatigue severity with BWL than with DRL. In contrary, BWL was not associated with significantly different changes in depression severity or quality of life compared with DRL. Finally, BWL was associated with similar acceptability (ie, dropout rate) and safety profile (ie, any discomfort) as those of DRL.ConclusionsThis meta-analysis provides an updated evidence on the rationale for application of BWL in ameliorating cancer-related fatigue in patients with different types of cancer.Trial registration numberINPLASY202140090.

Download Full-text

Effectiveness of technology‐based psychosocial interventions for child, adolescents and young adults undergoing cancer treatment: A meta‐analysis of randomised controlled trials

European Journal of Cancer Care ◽

10.1111/ecc.13515 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Cigdem Sari Ozturk ◽

Ebru Kilicarslan Toruner

Keyword(s):

Young Adults ◽

Cancer Treatment ◽

Randomised Controlled Trials ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Psychosocial Interventions ◽

Adolescents And Young Adults ◽

Controlled Trials ◽

Randomised Controlled

Download Full-text

Comparative effectiveness of physical exercise interventions for chronic non-specific neck pain: a systematic review with network meta-analysis of 40 randomised controlled trials

British Journal of Sports Medicine ◽

10.1136/bjsports-2020-102664 ◽

2020 ◽

pp. bjsports-2020-102664

Author(s):

Rutger MJ de Zoete ◽

Nigel R Armfield ◽

James H McAuley ◽

Kenneth Chen ◽

Michele Sterling

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Motor Control ◽

Physical Exercise ◽

Neck Pain ◽

Randomised Controlled Trials ◽

Tai Chi ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Controlled Trials ◽

Exercise Interventions ◽

Randomised Controlled

ObjectiveTo compare the effectiveness of different physical exercise interventions for chronic non-specific neck pain.DesignSystematic review and network meta-analysis.Data sourcesElectronic databases: AMED, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, MEDLINE, Physiotherapy Evidence Database, PsycINFO, Scopus and SPORTDiscus.Eligibility criteriaRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) describing the effects of any physical exercise intervention in adults with chronic non-specific neck pain.ResultsThe search returned 6549 records, 40 studies were included. Two networks of pairwise comparisons were constructed, one for pain intensity (n=38 RCTs, n=3151 participants) and one for disability (n=29 RCTs, n=2336 participants), and direct and indirect evidence was obtained. Compared with no treatment, three exercise interventions were found to be effective for pain and disability: motor control (Hedges’ g, pain −1.32, 95% CI: −1.99 to −0.65; disability −0.87, 95% CI: –1.45 o −0.29), yoga/Pilates/Tai Chi/Qigong (pain −1.25, 95% CI: –1.85 to −0.65; disability –1.16, 95% CI: –1.75 to −0.57) and strengthening (pain –1.21, 95% CI: –1.63 to −0.78; disability –0.75, 95% CI: –1.28 to −0.22). Other interventions, including range of motion (pain −0.98 CI: −2.51 to 0.56), balance (pain −0.38, 95% CI: −2.10 to 1.33) and multimodal (three or more exercises types combined) (pain −0.08, 95% CI: −1.70 to 1.53) exercises showed uncertain or negligible effects. The quality of evidence was very low according to the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) criteria.ConclusionThere is not one superior type of physical exercise for people with chronic non-specific neck pain. Rather, there is very low quality evidence that motor control, yoga/Pilates/Tai Chi/Qigong and strengthening exercises are equally effective. These findings may assist clinicians to select exercises for people with chronic non-specific neck pain.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42019126523.

Download Full-text