The Effects of Body-Oriented Interventions on Cancer-Related Symptoms of Women Who Survived Breast Cancer: Protocol for a Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Breast cancer is one of the most prevalent cancers worldwide, with a 5-year survival rate exceeding 90%. Despite advances in treatment, survivors frequently experience persistent cancer- and treatment-related symptoms that negatively impact their quality of life. Body-oriented interventions (BOIs) have demonstrated effectiveness in symptom management; however, systematic reviews focused exclusively on BOIs for women who survived breast cancer (WSBC) remain limited. This systematic review protocol outlines the methodology for evaluating the scientific evidence on the effects of BOIs on cancer- and treatment-related symptoms in WSBC. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to examine the scientific evidence on the effects of BOIs on cancer- and treatment-related symptoms, well-being, and quality of life in WSBC. METHODS: This protocol follows PRISMA-P (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocols) guidelines. We will conduct searches in 6 electronic databases: PubMed, Cochrane, Web of Science, Scopus, APA PsycNet, and Portal Regional da BVS. Studies will be considered for inclusion if they are written in English, French, Portuguese, or Spanish, with no restrictions on publication date; they consist of WSBC (aged 18 to 64 years); they are randomized controlled trials, quasi-randomized controlled trials, and pilot studies focusing on BOIs; they include a control group receiving no intervention, standard care, or a non-BOI; and the primary outcomes of interest include preintervention and postintervention measures of cancer- and treatment-related symptoms, well-being, and quality of life. The methodological quality of the studies and the risk of bias will be assessed using the PEDro scale and version 2 of the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool, respectively. The synthesis of results will be measured through the Best Evidence Synthesis. Two experienced independent reviewers will conduct study selection, data extraction, methodological quality assessment, and scientific evidence assessment. Disagreements will be resolved by a third reviewer. RESULTS: This protocol describes the prespecified methodology for the systematic review. At the time of publication of this protocol, the corresponding full systematic review manuscript was under peer review. The outcomes will synthesize the scientific evidence on the effects of BOIs on cancer- and treatment-related symptoms in WSBC. It is anticipated that this systematic review will identify benefits and directions for future research to support the integration of BOIs tailored to this population. CONCLUSIONS: Considering that previous systematic reviews focused on the effects of BOIs in survivors of all cancer types, challenges related to study risk of bias such as heterogeneity in intervention types, study designs, and outcome measures are anticipated, potentially leading to some inconsistency and imprecision. To mitigate these issues, PRISMA guidelines will be followed, and methodological quality and best evidence strength will be rigorously assessed. This review will systematically synthesize the effects of BOIs on cancer- and treatment-related symptoms in WSBC. These findings will provide health professionals with reliable evidence and methodological guidance for further research. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42023452519; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=452519. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/76858.
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 | 0.064 | 0.090 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.021 | 0.022 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.059 | 0.006 |
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".