Cited by 288Cancer survivorship and carePhysical Activity and HealthCancer-related cognitive impairment studies

Which exercise prescriptions improve quality of life and physical function in patients with cancer during and following treatment? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

Open access
Sweegers, Maike G, Altenburg, Teatske M, Chinapaw, Mai J, Kalter, Joeri, Verdonck-de Leeuw, Irma M, Courneya, Kerry S, Newton, Robert U, Aaronson, Neil K +3 more·2018·British Journal of Sports Medicine

Abstract

Objective: Certain exercise prescriptions for patients with cancer may improve self-reported quality of life (QoL) and self-reported physical function (PF). We investigated the effects of exercise on QoL and PF in patients with cancer and studied differences in effects between different intervention-related and exercise-related characteristics. Design: We searched four electronic databases to identify randomised controlled trials investigating exercise effects on QoL and PF in patients with cancer. Pooled effects (Hedges’ g) were calculated using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software. Subgroup analyses were conducted based on intervention dimensions, including timing, duration and delivery mode, and exercise dimensions, including frequency, intensity, type and time (FITT factors). Results: We included 74 exercise arms. Patients who were randomised to exercise interventions had significantly improved QoL (g=0.15, 95% CI (0.10 to 0.20), n=67 exercise arms) and PF (g=0.21, 95% CI (0.15 to 0.27), n=59 exercise arms) compared with patients in control groups. We found a significant between-group difference for exercise delivery mode, with significant beneficial effects for supervised exercise interventions (g=0.20, 95% CI (0.14 to 0.26) for QoL and g=0.27, 95% CI (0.20 to 0.33) for PF), but not for unsupervised interventions (g=0.04, 95% CI (−0.06 to 0.13) for QoL and g=0.09, 95% CI (−0.01 to 0.19) for PF). No statistically significant differences in intervention effects were found for variations in intervention timing, duration or exercise FITT factors. Unsupervised exercise with higher weekly energy expenditure was more effective than unsupervised exercise with lower energy expenditure (z=2.34, p=0.02). Conclusions: Exercise interventions, especially when supervised, have statistically significant and small clinical benefit on self-reported QoL and PF in patients with cancer. Unsupervised exercise intervention effects on PF were larger when prescribed at a higher weekly energy expenditure.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/bjsports-2017-097891

Cites

121 of 121 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Review
  2. Cuijpers P, van Straten A, van Schaik A, et al. Psychological treatment of depression in primary care: a meta-analysis. Br J Gen Pract 2009;59:51-60. · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Sweegers, M. G., Altenburg, T. M., Chinapaw, M. J., Kalter, J., Verdonck-de Leeuw, I. M., Courneya, K. S., Newton, R. U., Aaronson, N. K., Jacobsen, P. B., Brug, J., & Buffart, L. M.
Affiliations
  • Amsterdam Public Health (NL)
  • University of Alberta (CA)
  • Edith Cowan University (AU)
  • The Netherlands Cancer Institute (NL)
  • Moffitt Cancer Center (US)
Corresponding author
Buffart, Laurien M
Venue
British Journal of Sports Medicine
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2017-09-27
Volume
52
Issue
8
Pages
505-513
ISSN
  • 0306-3674 (ISSN-L)
  • 1473-0480
OpenAlex
W2756598459
Cited by
288
References
121
Citations by year
2026: 26 · 2025: 21 · 2024: 46 · 2023: 41 · 2022: 28 · 2021: 35 · 2020: 41 · 2019: 34 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 2
FWCI
2.55
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • British Journal of Sports Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UvA-DARE (University of Amsterdam) (publishedVersion)
  • Amsterdam UMC (VU Amsterdam) - Institutional Repository (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • VU Research Portal (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Australasian Journal of Paramedicine (submittedVersion)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
  • Pure Amsterdam UMC (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
Bas Mulder Award, Alpe d’HuZes foundation/Dutch Cancer Society
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Physical Activity and Health
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pulmonary and Respiratory Medicine › Cancer-related cognitive impairment studies
Keywords
exercise prescription, cancer patients, quality of life, physical function, supervised exercise, unsupervised exercise, energy expenditure, cancer treatment side effects
MeSH terms
Energy Metabolism, Exercise Therapy, Humans, Neoplasms, Quality of Life, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Prescriptions

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