The Effects of Body-Oriented Interventions on Cancer-Related Symptoms of Women Who Survived Breast Cancer: Protocol for a Systematic Review
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Breast cancer is one of the most prevalent cancers worldwide, with a 5-year survival rate exceeding 90%. Despite advances in treatment, survivors frequently experience persistent cancer- and treatment-related symptoms that negatively impact their quality of life. Body-oriented interventions (BOIs) have demonstrated effectiveness in symptom management; however, systematic reviews focused exclusively on BOIs for women who survived breast cancer (WSBC) remain limited. This systematic review protocol outlines the methodology for evaluating the scientific evidence on the effects of BOIs on cancer- and treatment-related symptoms in WSBC. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to examine the scientific evidence on the effects of BOIs on cancer- and treatment-related symptoms, well-being, and quality of life in WSBC. METHODS: This protocol follows PRISMA-P (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocols) guidelines. We will conduct searches in 6 electronic databases: PubMed, Cochrane, Web of Science, Scopus, APA PsycNet, and Portal Regional da BVS. Studies will be considered for inclusion if they are written in English, French, Portuguese, or Spanish, with no restrictions on publication date; they consist of WSBC (aged 18 to 64 years); they are randomized controlled trials, quasi-randomized controlled trials, and pilot studies focusing on BOIs; they include a control group receiving no intervention, standard care, or a non-BOI; and the primary outcomes of interest include preintervention and postintervention measures of cancer- and treatment-related symptoms, well-being, and quality of life. The methodological quality of the studies and the risk of bias will be assessed using the PEDro scale and version 2 of the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool, respectively. The synthesis of results will be measured through the Best Evidence Synthesis. Two experienced independent reviewers will conduct study selection, data extraction, methodological quality assessment, and scientific evidence assessment. Disagreements will be resolved by a third reviewer. RESULTS: This protocol describes the prespecified methodology for the systematic review. At the time of publication of this protocol, the corresponding full systematic review manuscript was under peer review. The outcomes will synthesize the scientific evidence on the effects of BOIs on cancer- and treatment-related symptoms in WSBC. It is anticipated that this systematic review will identify benefits and directions for future research to support the integration of BOIs tailored to this population. CONCLUSIONS: Considering that previous systematic reviews focused on the effects of BOIs in survivors of all cancer types, challenges related to study risk of bias such as heterogeneity in intervention types, study designs, and outcome measures are anticipated, potentially leading to some inconsistency and imprecision. To mitigate these issues, PRISMA guidelines will be followed, and methodological quality and best evidence strength will be rigorously assessed. This review will systematically synthesize the effects of BOIs on cancer- and treatment-related symptoms in WSBC. These findings will provide health professionals with reliable evidence and methodological guidance for further research. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42023452519; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=452519. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/76858.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,064 | 0,090 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,006 | 0,006 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,021 | 0,022 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,011 | 0,010 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,005 | 0,005 |
| Communication savante | 0,007 | 0,008 |
| Science ouverte | 0,005 | 0,005 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,008 | 0,007 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,059 | 0,006 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».