The DOI matches its Crossref record; 69 of the 71 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Comparison of Pharmaceutical, Psychological, and Exercise Treatments for Cancer-Related Fatigue: A Meta-analysis
Open accessAbstract
IMPORTANCE: Cancer-related fatigue (CRF) remains one of the most prevalent and troublesome adverse events experienced by patients with cancer during and after therapy. OBJECTIVE: To perform a meta-analysis to establish and compare the mean weighted effect sizes (WESs) of the 4 most commonly recommended treatments for CRF-exercise, psychological, combined exercise and psychological, and pharmaceutical-and to identify independent variables associated with treatment effectiveness. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, PsycINFO, CINAHL, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were searched from the inception of each database to May 31, 2016. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized clinical trials in adults with cancer were selected. Inclusion criteria consisted of CRF severity as an outcome and testing of exercise, psychological, exercise plus psychological, or pharmaceutical interventions. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Studies were independently reviewed by 12 raters in 3 groups using a systematic and blinded process for reconciling disagreement. Effect sizes (Cohen d) were calculated and inversely weighted by SE. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Severity of CRF was the primary outcome. Study quality was assessed using a modified 12-item version of the Physiotherapy Evidence-Based Database scale (range, 0-12, with 12 indicating best quality). RESULTS: From 17 033 references, 113 unique studies articles (11 525 unique participants; 78% female; mean age, 54 [range, 35-72] years) published from January 1, 1999, through May 31, 2016, had sufficient data. Studies were of good quality (mean Physiotherapy Evidence-Based Database scale score, 8.2; range, 5-12) with no evidence of publication bias. Exercise (WES, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.25-0.36; P < .001), psychological (WES, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.21-0.33; P < .001), and exercise plus psychological interventions (WES, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.13-0.38; P < .001) improved CRF during and after primary treatment, whereas pharmaceutical interventions did not (WES, 0.09; 95% CI, 0.00-0.19; P = .05). Results also suggest that CRF treatment effectiveness was associated with cancer stage, baseline treatment status, experimental treatment format, experimental treatment delivery mode, psychological mode, type of control condition, use of intention-to-treat analysis, and fatigue measures (WES range, -0.91 to 0.99). Results suggest that the effectiveness of behavioral interventions, specifically exercise and psychological interventions, is not attributable to time, attention, and education, and specific intervention modes may be more effective for treating CRF at different points in the cancer treatment trajectory (WES range, 0.09-0.22). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Exercise and psychological interventions are effective for reducing CRF during and after cancer treatment, and they are significantly better than the available pharmaceutical options. Clinicians should prescribe exercise or psychological interventions as first-line treatments for CRF.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The cited source doesn’t support the claim as written.
In the citing paper
“fewer than 10% of prior interventions targeting cancer-related fatigue have included patients with metastatic disease [42].”
From Pilot randomized trial of an acceptance-based telehealth intervention for women with ovarian cancer and PARP inhibitor-related fatigue (2023) · cites this paper as [42]
Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Moderate intensity combined aerobic plus resistance training sessions performed 2–3 times per week or twice weekly moderate intensity resistance training may also be effective(21, 24–26), and the latter particularly in prostate cancer(27).”
From Exercise Guidelines for Cancer Survivors: Consensus Statement from International Multidisciplinary Roundtable (2019) · cites this paper as [26]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Existing behavioral symptom management interventions for cancer survivors have been primarily developed and tested among older cancer survivors (aged > 40) [27–32].”
From Improving symptom management for survivors of young adult cancer: rationale and study protocol for a pilot randomized controlled trial (2024) · cites this paper as [29]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“prior exercise and psychosocial interventions for cancer-related fatigue have beenlong and demanding, requiring an average of 43 one-hour sessions [42]”
From Pilot randomized trial of an acceptance-based telehealth intervention for women with ovarian cancer and PARP inhibitor-related fatigue (2023) · cites this paper as [42]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Physical activity training has proven effective and is recommended in guidelines for treating CRF.10,42”
From Exploring the dynamic interconnectedness of protective and perpetuating factors of cancer-related fatigue (2023) · cites this paper as [42]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“the few studies that have included patients with advanced cancers have demonstrated smaller effect sizes compared with early-stage cancers [42].”
From Pilot randomized trial of an acceptance-based telehealth intervention for women with ovarian cancer and PARP inhibitor-related fatigue (2023) · cites this paper as [42]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Patients are also recommended various forms of psychotherapy [10,11,12], such as relaxation and guided imagery [13,14], mindfulness meditation (mindfulness-based stress reduction) [14], music therapy [15,16], occupational therapy [17,18,19], and breathing exercises [20,21,22].”
From The Effect of Vinyasa Yoga Practice on the Well-Being of Breast-Cancer Patients during COVID-19 Pandemic (2023) · cites this paper as [11]
The check wasn’t confident either way, so it gives no verdict — never disputed.
In the citing paper
“The basis for screening and intervention is the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guideline on fatigue [38–42].”
From The BrEasT cancer afTER-CARE (BETTER-CARE) programme to improve breast cancer follow-up: design and feasibility study results of a cluster-randomised complex intervention trial (2024) · cites this paper as [39]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredIn the citing paper
“The effect of exercise was strongest for moderate to vigorous intensity exercise whereas the effect for low intensity training was weak and this level of exercise is unlikely to reduce fatigue(22, 24, 26, 28).”
From Exercise Guidelines for Cancer Survivors: Consensus Statement from International Multidisciplinary Roundtable (2019) · cites this paper as [26]
In the citing paper
“The effect of exercise was strongest for moderate to vigorous intensity exercise whereas the effect for low intensity training was weak and this level of exercise is unlikely to reduce fatigue(22, 24, 26, 28).”
From Exercise Guidelines for Cancer Survivors: Consensus Statement from International Multidisciplinary Roundtable (2019) · cites this paper as [26]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: the PRISMA statement
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & for the PRISMA Group (2009) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.b2535 · Cited by 83,823
Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA Statement.
(2009) · PubMed Central · Cited by 44,859
Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & the PRISMA Group* (2009) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-151-4-200908180-00135 · Cited by 37,554
Conducting Meta-Analyses in R with the metafor Package
Viechtbauer, W. (2010) · Journal of Statistical Software · doi:10.18637/jss.v036.i03 · Cited by 20,464
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., & Altman, D. G. (2009) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.06.005 · Cited by 19,575
Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothstein, H. R. (2009) · doi:10.1002/9780470743386 · Cited by 14,225
CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials
the CONSORT Group, Schulz, K. F., Altman, D. G., & Moher, D. (2010) · BMC Medicine · doi:10.1186/1741-7015-8-18 · Cited by 13,371
Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothstein, H. R. (2021) · doi:10.1002/9781119558378 · Cited by 9,799
Verhagen, A. P., de Vet, H. C. W., de Bie, R. A., Kessels, A. G. H., Boers, M., Bouter, L. M., & Knipschild, P. G. (1998) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/s0895-4356(98)00131-0 · Cited by 2,470
Publication Bias in Meta‐Analysis: Prevention, Assessment and Adjustments
(2005) · doi:10.1002/0470870168 · Cited by 2,368
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- [46]Higgins JPT Green S Cochrane Collaboration: Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Hoboken, NJ Wiley-Blackwell 2008
Cited by
Sorted by citations
CAMPBELL, K. L., WINTERS-STONE, K. M., WISKEMANN, J., MAY, A. M., SCHWARTZ, A. L., COURNEYA, K. S., ZUCKER, D. S., MATTHEWS, C. E., LIGIBEL, J. A., GERBER, L. H., et al. (2019) · Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise · doi:10.1249/mss.0000000000002116 · Cited by 2,988
Primary breast cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up
Aebi, S. P., Davidson, T., Gruber, G., & Castiglione, M. (2010) · Annals of Oncology · doi:10.1093/annonc/mdq159 · Cited by 2,853
Early breast cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up
Cardoso, F., Kyriakides, S., Ohno, S., Penault-Llorca, F., Poortmans, P., Rubio, I. T., Zackrisson, S., & Senkus, E. (2019) · Annals of Oncology · doi:10.1093/annonc/mdz173 · Cited by 2,214
Brahmer, J. R., Abu-Sbeih, H., Ascierto, P. A., Brufsky, J., Cappelli, L. C., Cortazar, F. B., Gerber, D. E., Hamad, L., Hansen, E., Johnson, D. B., et al. (2021) · Journal for ImmunoTherapy of Cancer · doi:10.1136/jitc-2021-002435 · Cited by 917
Cancer-related fatigue: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis and treatment
Fabi, A., Bhargava, R., Fatigoni, S., Guglielmo, M., Horneber, M., Roila, F., Weis, J., Jordan, K., & Ripamonti, C. I. (2020) · Annals of Oncology · doi:10.1016/j.annonc.2020.02.016 · Cited by 583
Metadata
- Authors
- Mustian, K. M., Alfano, C. M., Heckler, C., Kleckner, A. S., Kleckner, I. R., Leach, C. R., Mohr, D., Palesh, O. G., Peppone, L. J., Piper, B. F., Scarpato, J., Smith, T., Sprod, L. K., & Miller, S. M.
- Affiliations
- University of Rochester Medicine (US)
- American Cancer Society (US)
- Northwestern University (US)
- Stanford Cancer Institute (US)
- National University (US)
- Fox Chase Cancer Center (US)
- University of North Carolina Wilmington (US)
- Corresponding author
- Mustian, Karen M.
- ORCID
- Venue
- JAMA Oncology
- Publisher
- American Medical Association (AMA)
- Published
- 2017-07-01
- Volume
- 3
- Issue
- 7
- Pages
- 961
- ISSN
- 2374-2437 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC5557289
- OpenAlex
- W2593266874
- Cited by
- 932
- References
- 71
- Citations by year
- 2026: 126 · 2025: 97 · 2024: 96 · 2023: 109 · 2022: 129 · 2021: 116 · 2020: 97 · 2019: 78 · 2018: 57 · 2017: 25
- FWCI
- 30.98
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- JAMA Oncology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institutes of Health (UL1TR001422)
- National Cancer Institute (R01CA181659, K07CA168911, R25CA102618, R01CA181064, UG1CA189961, R21CA185678, T32CA102618)
- National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer-related cognitive impairment studies
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Childhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of Life
- Keywords
- cancer-related fatigue, exercise therapy, psychological intervention, pharmacotherapy, treatment effectiveness comparison, cancer survivors, cancer patients, fatigue severity, quality of evidence, publication bias, treatment effect heterogeneity, exercise duration, exercise frequency
- MeSH terms
- Modafinil, Central Nervous System Stimulants, Benzhydryl Compounds, Dextroamphetamine, Exercise Therapy, Fatigue, Glucocorticoids, Humans, Methylphenidate, Methylprednisolone, Neoplasms, Psychotherapy, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors, Paroxetine, Wakefulness-Promoting Agents, Dexmethylphenidate Hydrochloride
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
