Relative efficacy of prehabilitation interventions and their components: systematic review with network and component network meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To estimate the relative efficacy of individual and combinations of prehabilitation components (exercise, nutrition, cognitive, and psychosocial) on critical outcomes of postoperative complications, length of stay, health related quality of life, and physical recovery for adults who have received surgery. DESIGN: Systematic review with network and component network meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials. DATA SOURCES: Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science were initially searched 1 March 2022, and updated on 25 October 2023. Certainty in findings were assessed using the Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis (CINeMA) approach. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: To compare treatments and to compare individual components informed by partnership with patients, clinicians, researchers, and health system leaders using an integrated knowledge translation framework. Eligible studies were any randomised controlled trial including adults preparing for major surgery who were allocated to prehabilitation interventions or usual care, and where critical outcomes were reported. RESULTS: 186 unique randomised controlled trials with 15 684 participants were included. When comparing treatments using random-effects network meta-analysis, isolated exercise (odds ratio 0.50 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.39 to 0.64); very low certainty of evidence), isolated nutritional (0.62 (0.50 to 0.77); very low certainty of evidence), and combined exercise, nutrition, plus psychosocial (0.64 (0.45 to 0.92); very low certainty of evidence) prehabilitation were most likely to reduce complications compared with usual care. Combined exercise and psychosocial (-2.44 days (95% CI -3.85 to -1.04); very low certainty of evidence), combined exercise and nutrition (-1.22 days (-2.54 to 0.10); moderate certainty of evidence), isolated exercise (-0.93 days (-1.27 to -0.58); very low certainty of evidence), and isolated nutritional prehabilitation (-0.99 days (-1.49 to -0.48); very low certainty of evidence) were most likely to decrease length of stay. Combined exercise, nutrition, plus psychosocial prehabilitation was most likely to improve health related quality of life (mean difference on Short Form-36 physical component scale 3.48 (95% CI 0.82 to 6.14); very low certainty of evidence) and physical recovery (mean difference in meters on the six min walk test 43.43 (95% CI 5.96 to 80.91); very low certainty of evidence).When comparing individual components using component network meta-analysis, exercise and nutrition were the individual components most likely to improve all critical outcomes. The certainty of evidence for all comparisons across all outcomes was generally low to very low due to trial level risk of bias and imprecision; however, results for exercise and nutritional prehabilitation were robust with exclusion of high risk of bias trials. CONCLUSIONS: Consistent and potentially meaningful effect estimates suggest that exercise prehabilitation, nutritional prehabilitation, and multicomponent interventions including exercise may benefit adults preparing for surgery and could be considered in clinical care. However, multicentre trials that are appropriately powered for high priority outcomes and that have a low risk of bias are required to have greater certainty in prehabilitation's efficacy. REGISTRATION: International prospective registry of systematic reviews CRD42023353710.
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 | 0.069 | 0.184 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.032 | 0.061 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".