Cited by 98Cancer survivorship and careCardiovascular and exercise physiologyPhysical Activity and Health

Attention to principles of exercise training: a review of exercise studies for survivors of cancers other than breast

Winters-Stone, Kerri M, Neil, Sarah E, Campbell, Kristin L·2014·British Journal of Sports Medicine

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.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/bjsports-2012-091732

Cites

49 of 49 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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Winters-Stone, K. M., Neil, S. E., & Campbell, K. L.
Affiliations
University of British Columbia (CA)
Venue
British Journal of Sports Medicine
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2013-01-04
Volume
48
Issue
12
Pages
987-995
ISSN
  • 0306-3674 (ISSN-L)
  • 1473-0480
OpenAlex
W2126209181
Cited by
98
References
49
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 7
FWCI
0.81
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • British Journal of Sports Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Cancer Institute (R21CA164661, R01CA163474)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Complementary and alternative medicine › Cardiovascular and exercise physiology
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Physical Activity and Health
Keywords
exercise prescription, cancer rehabilitation, exercise adherence, specificity, progression, overloading, reversibility, diminishing returns, initial values, dose-response relationship, exercise program design, reporting quality
MeSH terms
Exercise Therapy, Humans, Neoplasms, Patient Compliance, Quality of Life, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Survivors

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