MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2754730491 · doi:10.1007/s11764-017-0645-9

An international review and meta-analysis of prehabilitation compared to usual care for cancer patients

2017· review· en· W2754730491 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.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cancer Survivorship · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer survivorship and care
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMedical Research CouncilQueen's UniversityQueen's University Belfast
KeywordsPrehabilitationMedicinePhysical therapyQuality of life (healthcare)Prostate cancerRandomized controlled trialMeta-analysisOdds ratioPsycINFOMEDLINECochrane LibraryRehabilitationCancerInternal medicineNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: The purpose of the study is to systematically review and synthesise randomised controlled trials investigating the effectiveness of prehabilitation compared to usual care for newly diagnosed, adult-onset cancer patients. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL and SSCI were searched up to April 2017. Studies were included if disease-related, treatment-related, patient-reported and health service utilisation outcomes were assessed. Two reviewers independently reviewed and appraised the risk of bias of each study. RESULTS: Eighteen studies were included. Interventions comprised one or more of the following components: psychological support, education and exercise. Meta-analyses found that pelvic floor muscle training (PFMT) significantly increased odds of continence at 3 months (OR = 3.29, 95% CI = 1.57-6.91), but did not significantly reduce daily pad use at 6 months post-surgery Mean Difference (MD)= ( = - 0.96, 95% CI = - 2.04-0.12) for prostate cancer patients. Although quality of life improved due to PFMT, functional ability or distress did not. Further meta-analyses indicated that pre-surgical exercise significantly reduced length of hospital stay (MD = - 4.18, 95% CI = - 5.43-- 2.93) and significantly lowered odds of post-surgery complications (OR = 0.25, 95% CI = 0.10-0.66) for lung cancer patients. Psychology-based prehabilitation significantly improved mood, physical well-being and immune function for prostate cancer patients and improved fatigue and psychological outcomes and a trend for better quality of life among breast cancer patients. Risk of bias was high for most studies. CONCLUSIONS: Prehabilitation appears to benefit cancer patients. Rigorous trials are needed to investigate the effectiveness of prehabilitation among other cancer sites and other related effects. The cost-effectiveness of prehabilitation remains unanswered. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Providing interventions earlier in the care pathway may lead to better outcomes for patients during survivorship.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.575
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.186
GPT teacher head0.485
Teacher spread0.299 · 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