Comparative effects of different types of physical activity on health-related quality of life in breast cancer survivors: A systematic review, network meta-analysis, and meta-regression

不同类型体育活动对乳腺癌幸存者健康相关生活质量的比较影响:系统评价、网络荟萃分析和荟萃回归

阅读:2

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Physical activity is associated with improved health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in breast cancer survivors (BCS); however, no studies have assessed optimal physical activity. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to investigate the optimal types of physical activity for improving HRQoL in patients with BCS during and after cancer treatment. METHODS: A comprehensive search was conducted in Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library from inception to November 2023. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reporting the effects of different physical activities on HRQoL in BCS. Two independent reviewers assessed the risk of bias using the Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomized trials (version 2.0). A network meta-analysis approach based on a frequentist framework was used to rank the effectiveness of different physical activities. RESULTS: A total of 66 RCTs with 6464 participants were included. For all BCS, aerobic combined with resistance exercise (CE) (standardized mean difference [SMD] = 0.71; 95 % confidence interval [CI]: 0.40 to 1.10; P-score = 0.75; Grade: moderate) was the most effective physical activity to improve HRQoL. For participants in treatment, resistance exercise (RE) (SMD = 0.68; 95 % CI: 0.35 to 1.10; P-score = 0.84; Grade: moderate) was the most effective. However, after treatment, CE (SMD = 0.77; 95 % CI: 0.28 to 1.26; P-score = 0.74; Grade: very low) remained the most effective way to improve HRQoL in BCS. In addition, the regression analysis did not find any sources of heterogeneity. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this study suggest that all physical activities improved HRQoL in BCS compared to the control group. CE may have the best effect on all survivors and post-treatment survivors, whereas RE has the best effect during treatment. In addition, the quality of the included studies was low, and there was some risk of bias, which may affect the interpretation of the findings.

特别声明

1、本页面内容包含部分的内容是基于公开信息的合理引用;引用内容仅为补充信息,不代表本站立场。

2、若认为本页面引用内容涉及侵权,请及时与本站联系,我们将第一时间处理。

3、其他媒体/个人如需使用本页面原创内容,需注明“来源:[生知库]”并获得授权;使用引用内容的,需自行联系原作者获得许可。

4、投稿及合作请联系:info@biocloudy.com。