MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Exercise interventions for upper-limb dysfunction due to breast cancer treatment

2010· review· en· W2068597704 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2010
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLymphatic System and Diseases
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Health EconomicsHealth Sciences CentreUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBreast cancerMedicinePsychological interventionUpper limbPhysical medicine and rehabilitationPhysical therapyCancerOncologyInternal medicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Upper-limb dysfunction is a commonly reported side effect of treatment for breast cancer and may include decreased shoulder range of motion (the range through which a joint can be moved) (ROM) and strength, pain and lymphedema. OBJECTIVES: To review randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the effectiveness of exercise interventions in preventing, minimi sing, or improving upper-limb dysfunction due to breast cancer treatment. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Specialised Register of the Cochrane Breast Cancer Group, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and LILACS (to August 2008); contacted experts, handsearched reference lists, conference proceedings, clinical practice guidelines and other unpublished literature sources. SELECTION CRITERIA: RCTs evaluating the effectiveness and safety of exercise for upper-limb dysfunction. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two authors independently performed the data abstraction. Investigators were contacted for missing data. MAIN RESULTS: We included 24 studies involving 2132 participants. Ten of the 24 were considered of adequate methodological quality.Ten studies examined the effect of early versus delayed implementation of post-operative exercise. Implementing early exercise was more effective than delayed exercise in the short term recovery of shoulder flexion ROM (Weighted Mean Difference (WMD): 10.6 degrees; 95% Confidence Interval (CI): 4.51 to 16.6); however, early exercise also resulted in a statistically significant increase in wound drainage volume (Standardized Mean Difference (SMD) 0.31; 95% CI: 0.13 to 0.49) and duration (WMD: 1.15 days; 95% CI: 0.65 to 1.65).Fourteen studies examined the effect of structured exercise compared to usual care/comparison. Of these, six were post-operative, three during adjuvant treatment and five following cancer treatment. Structured exercise programs in the post-operative period significantly improved shoulder flexion ROM in the short-term (WMD: 12.92 degrees; 95% CI: 0.69 to 25.16). Physical therapy treatment yielded additional benefit for shoulder function post-intervention (SMD: 0.77; 95% CI: 0.33 to 1.21) and at six-month follow-up (SMD: 0.75; 95% CI: 0.32 to 1.19). There was no evidence of increased risk of lymphedema from exercise at any time point. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Exercise can result in a significant and clinically meaningful improvement in shoulder ROM in women with breast cancer. In the post-operative period, consideration should be given to early implementation of exercises, although this approach may need to be carefully weighed against the potential for increases in wound drainage volume and duration. High quality research studies that closely monitor exercise prescription factors (e.g. intensity), and address persistent upper-limb dysfunction are needed.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.238
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0120.005
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.145
GPT teacher head0.431
Teacher spread0.286 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it