Cited by 38Cancer survivorship and carePhysical Activity and HealthCancer Risks and Factors

Exercise interventions for patients with gynaecological cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Lin, K-Y., Frawley, H.C., Denehy, L., Feil, D., Granger, C.L.·2016·Physiotherapy

Abstract

Background People with gynaecological cancer commonly suffer from physical and psychological symptoms related to their cancer and cancer treatment.Objective To evaluate and synthesise the evidence examining the effect of interventions with an exercise component for females with gynaecological cancer.Data sources Medline, CINAHL, EMBASE, PubMed, PEDro, PsycINFO and Cochrane Library were searched systematically in September 2014.Study selection Randomised controlled trials were included if they investigated the effects of interventions with an exercise component in patients with gynaecological cancer.Study appraisal Two reviewers independently assessed the risk of bias of studies using the PEDro scale.Results Seven randomised controlled trials on five patient groups involving 221 participants were included. The mean PEDro score was 5.3 (standard deviation 1.5) out of 10. Compared with control groups, the intervention groups showed significantly greater improvements in physical activity levels and body mass index. No significant effects were found for fatigue, depression and health-related quality of life. A meta-analysis of functional exercise capacity and muscle strength was not possible due to insufficient data in the included trials.Limitations The majority of studies provided exercise as part of multicomponent intervention programmes.Conclusions Interventions with an exercise component appear to be effective at improving physical activity levels and body mass index among patients with gynaecological cancer. Further research is required to examine the effects of exercise interventions alone in this population.Systematic review registration number PROSPERO CRD42014014019.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.physio.2016.02.006

Cites

50 of 50 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 52 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Lin, K.-Y., Frawley, H. C., Denehy, L., Feil, D., & Granger, C. L.
Affiliations
  • The University of Melbourne (AU)
  • La Trobe University (AU)
Corresponding author
Lin, K-Y.
Venue
Physiotherapy
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2016-12
Volume
102
Issue
4
Pages
309-319
ISSN
0031-9406 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2339693465
Cited by
38
References
52
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 2
FWCI
0.40
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Physiotherapy (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Physical Activity and Health
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer Risks and Factors
Keywords
exercise intervention, gynecologic cancer, physical activity, body mass index, fatigue, depression, health-related quality of life, cancer survivors, cancer treatment side effects
MeSH terms
Exercise Therapy, Fatigue, Female, Genital Neoplasms, Female, Humans, Quality of Life, Body Mass Index, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Muscle Strength

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