Research Quality and Impact of Cardiac Rehabilitation in Cancer Survivors: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Background: Cardiac rehabilitation (CR) is endorsed to improve cardiovascular outcomes in cancer survivors. The quality of CR-based research in oncology has not been assessed. Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate the quality of reporting and evidence from CR-based intervention studies in oncology and to explore associations between intervention participation and outcomes. Methods: Systematic searches of 5 databases were conducted (January 2020) and updated (September 2021). Randomized and nonrandomized studies evaluating CR-based interventions in adult cancer survivors during and after treatment were eligible. Independent reviewers extracted data using 2 reporting guidelines (Template for Intervention Description and Replication and Consolidated Standards for Reporting Trials Harms extension), risk of bias (ROB) assessment tools (Cochrane ROB 2.0 and Cochrane Risk of Bias in Non-Randomized Studies of Interventions), and a combined inventory (Tool for the Assessment of Study Quality and reporting in Exercise). A meta-analysis was used to explore pre-intervention/post-intervention differences for commonly assessed outcomes. Results: Ten studies involving data from 685 survivors were included. The mean quality scores for intervention reporting (Template for Intervention Description and Replication) and harms (Consolidated Standards for Reporting Trials Harms extension) were 62% and 17%, respectively. There was moderate-to-high ROB across nonrandomized (Cochrane Risk of Bias in Non-Randomized Studies of Interventions score: 25%) and randomized (ROB 2.0 score: 50%) studies. The mean standardized cardiorespiratory fitness was higher (0.42; 95% CI: 0.27-0.57), fatigue was lower (-0.45; 95% CI: -0.55 to -0.34), and percent body fat (0.07; 95% CI: -0.23 to 0.38) was not different in survivors completing CR compared with those not completing CR. Conclusions: CR-based studies in oncology have low-to-moderate reporting quality and moderate-to-high ROB limiting interpretation, reproducibility, and translation of this evidence into practice.

Concurrent validity of the Harris Infant Neuromotor Test and the Alberta Infant Motor Scale.

We examined concurrent validity of scores for two infant motor screening tools, the Harris Infant Neuromotor Test (HINT) and the Alberta Infant Motor Scale, in 121 Canadian infants. Relationships between the two tests for the overall sample were as follows: r = -.83 at 4 to 6.5 months (n = 121; p < .01) and r = -.85 at 10 to 12.5 months (n = 109; p < .01), suggesting that the HINT, the newer of the two measures, is valid in determining motor delays. Each test has advantages and disadvantages, and practitioners should determine which one best meets their infant assessment needs.

Psychometric properties and standardization samples of four screening tests for infants and young children: a review.

PURPOSE: This article compares traditional psychometric properties (interrater and test-retest reliability, concurrent and predictive validity), clinical epidemiological characteristics (sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive values), and standardization samples of four tests useful to pediatric therapists in screening infants and young children for developmental delays. SUMMARY OF KEY POINTS: Pediatric therapists are often involved in screening infants and young children for developmental delay. Ideally, they will use standardized tests that have strong psychometric properties (eg, reliability, validity, sensitivity, specificity). The four tests described in this article vary in meeting these criteria. They vary as well in the domains assessed, age ranges for which they are intended, and desired qualifications of the examiners. CONCLUSIONS: Each of the four tests reviewed has identified strengths and weaknesses. Practicing clinicians should select screening tests based on the test's stated purpose, qualifications of the examiner, age range covered, administration and scoring time, developmental domains encompassed, comparability of the standardization sample, and strength of the test's psychometric properties.