Cited by 37Cancer survivorship and careChildhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of LifeMeta-analysis and systematic reviews

Predicting OptimaL cAncer RehabIlitation and Supportive care (POLARIS): rationale and design for meta-analyses of individual patient data of randomized controlled trials that evaluate the effect of physical activity and psychosocial interventions on health-related quality of life in cancer survivors

Open access
Buffart, Laurien M, Kalter, Joeri, Chinapaw, Mai JM, Heymans, Martijn W, Aaronson, Neil K, Courneya, Kerry S, Jacobsen, Paul B, Newton, Robert U +2 more·2013·Systematic Reviews

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Effective interventions to improve quality of life of cancer survivors are essential. Numerous randomized controlled trials have evaluated the effects of physical activity or psychosocial interventions on health-related quality of life of cancer survivors, with generally small sample sizes and modest effects. Better targeted interventions may result in larger effects. To realize such targeted interventions, we must determine which interventions that are presently available work for which patients, and what the underlying mechanisms are (that is, the moderators and mediators of physical activity and psychosocial interventions). Individual patient data meta-analysis has been described as the 'gold standard' of systematic review methodology. Instead of extracting aggregate data from study reports or from authors, the original research data are sought directly from the investigators. Individual patient data meta-analyses allow for adequate statistical analysis of intervention effects and moderators of such effects.Here, we report the rationale and design of the Predicting OptimaL cAncer RehabIlitation and Supportive care (POLARIS) Consortium. The primary aim of POLARIS is 1) to conduct meta-analyses based on individual patient data to evaluate the effect of physical activity and psychosocial interventions on the health-related quality of life of cancer survivors; 2) to identify important demographic, clinical, personal, or intervention-related moderators of the effect; and 3) to build and validate clinical prediction models identifying the most relevant predictors of intervention success. METHODS/DESIGN: We will invite investigators of randomized controlled trials that evaluate the effects of physical activity and/or psychosocial interventions on health-related quality of life compared with a wait-list, usual care or attention control group among adult cancer survivors to join the POLARIS consortium and share their data for use in pooled analyses that will address the proposed aims. We are in the process of identifying eligible randomized controlled trials through literature searches in four databases. To date, we have identified 132 eligible and unique trials. DISCUSSION: The POLARIS consortium will conduct the first individual patient data meta-analyses in order to generate evidence essential to targeting physical activity and psychosocial programs to the individual survivor's characteristics, capabilities, and preferences. REGISTRATION PROSPERO: International prospective register of systematic reviews, CRD42013003805.

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 · 10.1186/2046-4053-2-75

Cites

42 of 42 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?

  • Two reviewers will independently assess risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias assessment tool.

    “Two reviewers (JL and WS) will independently assess risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias assessment tool, focusing on the evaluation of sequence generation, allocation concealment, blinding (participants, personnel, and outcome assessors), incomplete data, selective outcome reporting, and assessing other biases [85].”

    From Acceptance and commitment therapy for chronic pain: Protocol of a systematic review and individual participant data meta-Analysis (2019) · cites this paper as [85]

    The Methods/Design sections on study selection and statistical analysis describe the POLARIS meta-analysis, but do not say that two reviewers will independently assess risk of bias or use the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Searches for “risk of bias,” “Cochrane,” and the listed bias domains found no passage addressing that assessment; the Cochrane mentions retrieved were in the References section. (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Buffart, L. M., Kalter, J., Chinapaw, M. J., Heymans, M. W., Aaronson, N. K., Courneya, K. S., Jacobsen, P. B., Newton, R. U., Verdonck-de Leeuw, I. M., & Brug, J.
Affiliations
  • Amsterdam Public Health (NL)
  • The Netherlands Cancer Institute (NL)
  • University of Alberta (CA)
  • Moffitt Cancer Center (US)
  • Edith Cowan University (AU)
Corresponding author
Buffart, Laurien M
Venue
Systematic Reviews
Published
2013-09-13
Volume
2
Issue
1
Pages
75-75
ISSN
2046-4053 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2154224488
Cited by
37
References
42
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 1 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 1
FWCI
1.25
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Systematic Reviews (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Amsterdam UMC (VU Amsterdam) - Institutional Repository (publishedVersion)
  • VU Research Portal (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • UvA-DARE (University of Amsterdam) (acceptedVersion, other-oa)
  • Australasian Journal of Paramedicine (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Pure Amsterdam UMC (submittedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
Funders
KWF Kankerbestrijding
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Childhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of Life
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
Keywords
cancer survivors, health-related quality of life, physical activity interventions, psychosocial interventions, individual patient data meta-analysis, intervention moderators, clinical prediction model, targeted interventions
MeSH terms
Data Collection, Humans, Motor Activity, Neoplasms, Quality of Life, Research Design, Stress, Psychological, Meta-Analysis as Topic, 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