A systematic review of exercise and psychosocial rehabilitation interventions to improve health-related outcomes in patients with bladder cancer undergoing radical cystectomy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Summarizing the evidence on the effects of pre- and postoperative exercise and psychosocial rehabilitation interventions on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and physical fitness in bladder cancer patients undergoing radical cystectomy. DATA SOURCES: The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science and the Physiotherapy Evidence Database were searched independently by two authors from inception until 10 November 2017. Cited references of the studies and citing references retrieved via Web of Science were also checked. REVIEW METHODS: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized studies assessing effects of exercise and psychosocial interventions in bladder cancer patients undergoing radical cystectomy were eligible. Primary outcome measures were PROs and physical fitness. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration tool and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. RESULTS: Five RCTs (three exercise and two psychosocial studies) and one non-randomized psychosocial study comprising 317 bladder cancer patients were included. Timing of the intervention was preoperative ( n = 2), postoperative ( n = 2) or both pre- and postoperative ( n = 2). Positive effects of exercise were found for physical fitness ( n = 3), some health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) domains ( n = 2), personal activities in daily living ( n = 1) and muscle strength ( n = 1). Psychosocial interventions showed positive effects on anxiety ( n = 1), fatigue ( n = 1), depression ( n = 1), HRQoL ( n = 1) and posttraumatic growth ( n = 1). Quality assessment showed most shortcomings with sample sizes and strong heterogeneity was observed between studies. CONCLUSION: The evidence relating to the effects of exercise in bladder cancer is very limited and is even less for psychosocial interventions.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".