Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 325

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 12 of the 12 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Randomized Controlled Trial of the Effects of Print Materials and Step Pedometers on Physical Activity and Quality of Life in Breast Cancer Survivors

Open access
Vallance, Jeffrey K.H., Courneya, Kerry S., Plotnikoff, Ronald C., Yasui, Yutaka, Mackey, John R.·2007·Journal of Clinical Oncology
DOI 10.1200/jco.2006.07.9988
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Purpose: To determine the effects of breast cancer–specific print materials and step pedometers on physical activity (PA) and quality of life (QoL) in breast cancer survivors. Patients and Methods: Breast cancer survivors (N = 377) were randomly assigned to receive one of the following: a standard public health recommendation for PA, previously developed breast cancer–specific PA print materials, a step pedometer, or a combination of breast cancer–specific print materials and step pedometers. The primary outcome was self-reported moderate/vigorous PA minutes per week. Secondary outcomes were QoL (Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy–Breast), fatigue, self-reported brisk walking, and objective step counts. Assessments were conducted at baseline and postintervention (12 weeks). Results: Attrition was 10.3% (39 of 377). On the basis of linear mixed-model analyses, PA increased by 30 minutes/week in the standard recommendation group compared with 70 minutes/week in the print material group (mean difference, 39 minutes/week; 95% CI = −10 to 89; d = 0.25; P = .117), 89 minutes/week in the pedometer group (mean difference, 59 minutes/week; 95% CI, 11 to 108; d = 0.38; P = .017), and 87 minutes/week in the combined group (mean difference, 57 minutes/week; 95% CI, 8 to 106; d = 0.37; P = .022). For brisk walking minutes/week, all three intervention groups reported significantly greater increases than the standard recommendation group. The combined group also reported significantly improved QoL (mean difference, 5.8; 95% CI, 2.0 to 9.6; d = 0.33; P = .003) and reduced fatigue (mean difference, 2.3; 95% CI, 0.0 to 4.7; d = 0.25; P = .052) compared with the standard recommendation group. Conclusion: Breast cancer–specific PA print materials and pedometers may be effective strategies for increasing PA and QoL in breast cancer survivors. A combined approach appears to be optimal. Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT00221221

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.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1200/jco.2006.07.9988

Cites

12 of 12 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

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

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

Show all 12 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Vallance, J. K. H., Courneya, K. S., Plotnikoff, R. C., Yasui, Y., & Mackey, J. R.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Publisher
American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO)
Published
2007-06-10
Volume
25
Issue
17
Pages
2352-2359
ISSN
  • 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-7755
DOI
10.1200/jco.2006.07.9988
OpenAlex
W2138694790
Cited by
325
References
12
FWCI
9.81
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.