MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Physical therapy interventions, other than general physical exercise interventions, in children and adolescents before, during and following treatment for cancer

2021· review· en· W4239074035 on OpenAlexaff
Paula A. Ospina, Alyssa McComb, Lesley Pritchard, David D. Eisenstat, Margaret L. McNeely

Bibliographic record

VenueCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChildhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePsychological interventionPhysical therapyIntervention (counseling)Quality of life (healthcare)CancerAttendanceClinical trialInternal medicinePsychiatryNursing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Children and adolescents diagnosed with cancer are at high risk of experiencing severe side effects from cancer treatment, many of which are amenable to physical therapy. These side effects can negatively impact a child's quality of life and ability to participate in daily activities (e.g. play and attendance at school). Researchers have evaluated physical therapy interventions in children with cancer and childhood cancer survivors. However, factors such as small sample sizes, varying intervention protocols and differences in cancer types among trials make it difficult to draw conclusions about efficacy.The primary aim of this review was to evaluate the efficacy of physical therapy interventions - with a specific focus on symptom relief and compensation of therapy-related side effects - on the quality of life of children and adolescents diagnosed with cancer. Participants must be between the ages of 0 and 19 years at the time of the physical therapy intervention study. The intervention may occur prior to, during or following cancer treatment. The intervention must be compared to a control group of children receiving standard care, no physical therapy intervention or a comparison intervention. We have excluded general physical exercise studies where the primary aim was to improve physical fitness through aerobic, anaerobic, resistance exercise or combined physical exercise training regimens (i.e. combined aerobic and resistance exercise regimens). We have also intended to record the occurrence of any adverse effects resulting from physical therapy interventions. The secondary aims were to evaluate the efficacy of physical therapy on impairments of pain, peripheral neuropathy, balance, gait, functional abilities and mobility, motor function and performance, range of motion, strength and fatigue.We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PEDro, ongoing trial registries, conference proceedings and the reference lists of relevant studies and reviews in March 2020. We also contacted oncology rehabilitation researchers working in paediatrics in March 2020 to identify additional studies.The review included randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cross-over trials, and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) that compared the effects of physical therapy interventions to a control group, and involved children and adolescents diagnosed with cancer between the ages of 0 and 19 years at the time of the intervention. We excluded studies examining general physical exercise interventions where the primary aim was to improve physical fitness through aerobic exercise, resistance exercise or combined physical exercise training regimens (i.e. combined aerobic and resistance exercise regimens).We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.We found no RCTs, cross-over trials or CCTs comparing the effects of physical therapy interventions with a focus on symptom relief and compensation of therapy-related side effects for children and adolescents between the ages of 0 and 19 years.Results demonstrate that the evidence to date is inadequate to inform clinical practice. Recommendations for future research include the need for large-scale, high-quality designs that examine: (1) paediatric populations with same cancer types; (2) similar intervention protocols; (3) long-term outcomes; (4) physical therapy interventions (e.g. electrophysical modalities and sensory interventions); and (5) outcomes commonly impaired in children with cancer (e.g. peripheral neuropathy and gait deficits).

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.118
GPT teacher head0.444
Teacher spread0.327 · 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

Citations28
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCochrane Database of Systematic ReviewsSame topicChildhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of LifeFrench-language works237,207