MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

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

2010· review· en· W2068597704 on OpenAlexaff
Margaret L. McNeely, Kristin L. Campbell, Maria B. Ospina, Brian H. Rowe, Kelly Dabbs, Terry P. Klassen, John R. Mackey, Kerry S. Courneya

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2008); contacted experts, handsearched reference lists, conference proceedings, clinical practice guidelines and other unpublished literature sources.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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.034
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.043

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.034
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.005
Bibliometrics0.0040.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0030.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.000

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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations322
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCochrane Database of Systematic ReviewsSame topicLymphatic System and DiseasesFrench-language works237,207