MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3212079713 · doi:10.3389/fonc.2021.745280

Physical Therapies for Psychosomatic Symptoms and Quality of Life Induced by Aromatase Inhibitors in Breast Cancer Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2021· review· en· W3212079713 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Xueying Zhu, Zhong Li, Cong Chen, Ruli Feng, Bai-Ru Cheng, Ruoyi Liu, Ruiting Wang, Li Xu, Yue Wang, Xin Tao, Peng Zhao

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Oncology · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer survivorship and care
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersBeijing University of Chinese Medicine
KeywordsMedicineAcupunctureRandomized controlled trialPhysical therapyBreast cancerQuality of life (healthcare)MEDLINEMeta-analysisCochrane LibraryInternal medicineHospital Anxiety and Depression ScaleAnxietyCancerAlternative medicinePsychiatryPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective To evaluate the effects of Physical Therapies (PTs) on improvement in psychosomatic symptoms and quality of life (QOL) in breast cancer patients. Data Sources Seven databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wangfang, VIP, and China Biology Medicine disc databases) were systematically searched from the database inception through May 18, 2021. Study Selection Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) which compared acupuncture or exercise with a sham control or usual care for the treatment of aromatase inhibitors (AIs)-related psychosomatic symptoms and QOL. Data Extraction and Synthesis Data were screened and extracted independently using predesigned forms. The quality of RCTs was assessed with the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. The effect size was calculated via random-effects modeling. The quality of evidence was evaluated with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach. Main Outcomes and Measures The score of pain was measured with BPI scale and Western Ontario and the McMaster Universities Index (WOMAC) scale. Emotional state was measured with Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI), Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS-A), and Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-Fatigue). The QOL score was measured by self-reported measurements, including the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G) scale and 36-Item Short Form Survey (SF-36) scale. Results Eleven RCTs (with 830 patients) were included in the systematic review, and data from 10 RCTs (with 798 patients) were used in the meta-analysis. Results showed acupuncture significantly reduced worst pain scores ( P < 0.00001, I 2 = 83.5%) [SMD = −0.81, 95% CI (−1.51, −0.11)], but the effect of exercise therapies was not significant in overall change in worst pain scores ( P =0.006, I 2 = 72.3%) [SMD = −0.30, 95% CI (−0.76, 0.16)]. Both acupuncture and exercise resulted in little to no difference in overall change in HADS-A subscale (P = 0.026<0.05, I 2 = 79.8%) [WMD = −0.21, 95% CI (−3.44, 3.03)], PSQI subscale (P = 0.488, I 2 = 0%) [WMD = 0.98, 95% CI (−0.57, 2.53)], and FACIT-Fatigue subscale (P = 0.022<0.05, I 2 = 81.0%) [WMD = 1.6, 95% CI (−5.75, 8.94)]. Exercise (compared with usual care) was associated with improving overall change in health-related QOL (subscales of SF-36 tool) (P = 0, I 2 = 72.1%) [WMD = 7.97, 95% CI (5.68, 10.25)] and cancer-specific QOL (subscales of FACT-G tool) (P = 0.304, I 2 = 16%) [WMD = 1.16, 95% CI (0.34, 1.97)]. Conclusions and Relevance This systematic review and meta-analysis suggested that based on moderate-level evidence, acupuncture was associated with significant reductions in pain intensity, and exercise might improve QOL in breast cancer patients treated with AIs. However, in psychosomatic symptoms such as anxiety, sleep disturbance, and fatigue, acupuncture and exercise training did not result in significant improvements.

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 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: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.835
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0140.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.398
Teacher spread0.339 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations23
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in OncologySame topicCancer survivorship and careFrench-language works237,207