Evidence Hub

A Systematic Review of Functional Outcomes in Cancer Rehabilitation Research

Alix G. Sleight, L. Gerber, Timothy F. Marshall, Alicia A. Livinski, C. Alfano, S. Harrington, A. Flores, Aneesha Virani et al.

Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 2022

66 citations

Abstract

Objective: To systematically review the evidence regarding rehabilitation interventions targeting optimal physical or cognitive function in adults with a history of cancer, and describe the breadth of evidence as well as strengths and limitations across a range of functional domains Data Sources: PubMed, CINAHL Plus, Scopus, Web of Science, EMBASE. The time scope was January 2008 – April 2019. Study Selection: Prospective, controlled trials including single- and multi-arm cohorts investigating rehabilitative interventions for cancer survivors at any point in the continuum of care were included, if studies included a primary functional outcome measure. Secondary data analyses and pilot/feasibility studies were excluded. Full text review identified 362 studies for inclusion. Data Extraction: Extraction was performed by co-author teams, and quality and bias assessed using the American Academy of Neurology (AAN) Classification of Evidence Scheme (Class I-IV). Data Synthesis: Studies for which the functional primary endpoint achieved significance were categorized into 9 functional areas foundational to cancer rehabilitation: 1) quality of life (109 studies); 2) activities of daily living (61 studies); 3) fatigue (59 studies); 4) functional mobility (55 studies); 5) exercise behavior (37 studies); 6) cognition (20 studies); 7) communication (10 studies); 8) sexual function (6 studies); and 9) return to work (5 studies). Most studies were categorized as class III in quality/bias.…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a systematic review, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free