Effects of Group Exercise Intervention on Quality of Life and Physical Parameters in Patients with Childhood Cancer: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although the survival rates of childhood cancer are increasing, children diagnosed as having cancer experience psychological and physical problems and a declining quality of life (QOL). METHODS: A systematic review of PubMed databases was conducted up to September 2023 to identify studies reporting the effects of group exercise intervention in children with cancer. The inclusion criteria were pre-specified, including children aged ≤19 years old who received group exercise intervention and interventional studies written in English. Studies involving non-exercise intervention or non-group intervention were excluded. RESULTS: Five studies were included in the present review. In three studies, QOL and physical parameters were improved after group exercise intervention, and in two studies, only physical parameters were improved. Improvements in QOL were achieved through psychosocial variables, improved scores of subscales of pain and hurt, nausea, and procedure-related anxiety, and reduced cancer-related fatigue. All studies had high numbers of participants who completed the intervention. However, all studies showed a high risk of bias regarding the selection of the reported results, and most studies showed a high risk of bias regarding deviations from the intended intervention and outcome measurement. CONCLUSION: The reviewed studies showed that group exercise intervention for children with cancer could improve their QOL and/or physical parameters.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".