Kerri M Winters-Stone1, Sarah E Neil2, Kristin L Campbell3. 1. Oregon Health & Science University, School of Nursing and Knight Cancer Institute, Portland, Oregon, USA. 2. School of Population and Public Health, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. 3. Department of Physical Therapy, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) can evaluate how well a particular exercise programme reduces cancer treatment-related side effects. Adequate design and reporting of the exercise prescription employed in RCTs is central to interpreting study findings and translating effective interventions into practice. Our previous review on the quality and reporting of exercise prescriptions in RCTs in breast cancer survivors revealed several inadequacies. This review similarly evaluates exercise prescriptions used in RCTs in patients with cancers other than the breast. METHODS: The literature was searched for RCTs in persons diagnosed with a cancer other than breast. Data were extracted to evaluate the attention to the principles of exercise training in the study design and the reporting of and adherence to the exercise prescription used for the intervention. RESULTS: Of the 33 studies reviewed, none attended to all of the exercise training principles. Specificity was applied by 89%, progression by 26%, overload by 37%, initial values by 26%, diminishing returns by 9% and reversibility by 3%. Only 2 of 33 studies (6%) reported both the exercise prescription in full and adherence to each individual component of the prescription. CONCLUSIONS: Application of the principles of training in exercise RCTs of non-breast cancer survivors was incomplete and inconsistent. Given these observations, interpretation of findings from the reviewed studies should consider potential shortcomings in intervention design. Though the prescribed exercise programme was often described, adherence to the entire prescription was rarely reported providing a less accurate picture of dose-response and challenges in translating programmes to community settings. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.
OBJECTIVES: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) can evaluate how well a particular exercise programme reduces cancer treatment-related side effects. Adequate design and reporting of the exercise prescription employed in RCTs is central to interpreting study findings and translating effective interventions into practice. Our previous review on the quality and reporting of exercise prescriptions in RCTs in breast cancer survivors revealed several inadequacies. This review similarly evaluates exercise prescriptions used in RCTs in patients with cancers other than the breast. METHODS: The literature was searched for RCTs in persons diagnosed with a cancer other than breast. Data were extracted to evaluate the attention to the principles of exercise training in the study design and the reporting of and adherence to the exercise prescription used for the intervention. RESULTS: Of the 33 studies reviewed, none attended to all of the exercise training principles. Specificity was applied by 89%, progression by 26%, overload by 37%, initial values by 26%, diminishing returns by 9% and reversibility by 3%. Only 2 of 33 studies (6%) reported both the exercise prescription in full and adherence to each individual component of the prescription. CONCLUSIONS: Application of the principles of training in exercise RCTs of non-breast cancer survivors was incomplete and inconsistent. Given these observations, interpretation of findings from the reviewed studies should consider potential shortcomings in intervention design. Though the prescribed exercise programme was often described, adherence to the entire prescription was rarely reported providing a less accurate picture of dose-response and challenges in translating programmes to community settings. Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.
Entities:
Keywords:
Evidence based reviews; Exercise rehabilitation; Intervention efficacy
Authors: Pierrette Baschung Pfister; Eling D de Bruin; Bernadette C Tobler-Ammann; Britta Maurer; Ruud H Knols Journal: Rheumatol Int Date: 2015-08-14 Impact factor: 2.631
Authors: Tormod S Nilsen; Jessica M Scott; Meghan Michalski; Catherine Capaci; Samantha Thomas; James E Herndon; John Sasso; Neil D Eves; Lee W Jones Journal: Med Sci Sports Exerc Date: 2018-06 Impact factor: 5.411
Authors: D Santa Mina; D Au; J Brunet; J Jones; G Tomlinson; N Taback; D Field; A Berlingeri; H Bradley; D Howell Journal: Curr Oncol Date: 2017-10-25 Impact factor: 3.677
Authors: Justin C Brown; Andrea B Troxel; Bonnie Ky; Nevena Damjanov; Babette S Zemel; Michael R Rickels; Andrew D Rhim; Anil K Rustgi; Kerry S Courneya; Kathryn H Schmitz Journal: Clin Colorectal Cancer Date: 2017-06-17 Impact factor: 4.481
Authors: Kerri M Winters-Stone; Karen S Lyons; Jessica Dobek; Nathan F Dieckmann; Jill A Bennett; Lillian Nail; Tomasz M Beer Journal: J Cancer Surviv Date: 2015-12-29 Impact factor: 4.442
Authors: Fabian Sanchis-Gomar; Alejandro Lucia; Thomas Yvert; Ana Ruiz-Casado; Helios Pareja-Galeano; Alejandro Santos-Lozano; Carmen Fiuza-Luces; Nuria Garatachea; Giuseppe Lippi; Claude Bouchard; Nathan A Berger Journal: Cancer Prev Res (Phila) Date: 2014-11-21
Authors: Rea Kuehl; Martina E Schmidt; Peter Dreger; Karen Steindorf; Martin Bohus; Joachim Wiskemann Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2016-05-17 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Kerri M Winters-Stone; Jessica C Dobek; Jill A Bennett; Nathan F Dieckmann; Gianni F Maddalozzo; Christopher W Ryan; Tomasz M Beer Journal: Arch Phys Med Rehabil Date: 2014-09-03 Impact factor: 3.966