Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
What information can we gain from the quality appraisal of guidelines with physical activity recommendations for cancer patients?A systematic review using the AGREE II and AGREE-REX tools.
Zhou, Xue; Yang, Yujie; Li, Conghui; Gu, Shanshan; Hou, Weiqian; Lai, Xigui; Zhai, Liwen; Zhu, Yi.
Afiliação
  • Zhou X; The Fifth Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, 450000, Henan, China.
  • Yang Y; Academy of Medical Sciences, Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, 450000, Henan, China.
  • Li C; University of Health and Rehabilitation Sciences, Qingdao, 266000, Shandong, China.
  • Gu S; The Fifth Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, 450000, Henan, China.
  • Hou W; Academy of Medical Sciences, Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, 450000, Henan, China.
  • Lai X; Department of Physical Therapy, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
  • Zhai L; The Fifth Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, 450000, Henan, China.
  • Zhu Y; Academy of Medical Sciences, Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, 450000, Henan, China.
Support Care Cancer ; 31(1): 97, 2023 Jan 04.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36598576
ABSTRACT

PURPOSE:

There has been growing amount of evidence supporting the benefits of physical activity (PA) on oncological patients' cancer-related health outcomes. Although guidelines on cancer rehabilitation are widely available, the varying quality and practical applicability limited the clinical application of PA recommendations. To assist the future development of guidelines, in this systematic review, we evaluated the quality and applicability of current cancer rehabilitation guidelines with PA recommendations and synthesized PA recommendations for the oncological population.

METHODS:

A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, CINAHL, PEDro, EMBASE, and guideline repositories to identify guidelines with PA recommendations for cancer patients from 1 May 2016 to 1 June 2022. The quality of included guidelines was appraised using the tools "Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II" (AGREE II) and AGREE-REX (Recommendation Excellence). PA recommendations were synthesized from the guidelines.

RESULTS:

Sixteen guidelines were extracted. The AGREE II domain "clarity of presentation" obtained the highest score, while "applicability" received the lowest, ranging from 33.33% to 98.58%. The AGREE-REX domains "values and preferences" and "implementability" generally scored lower and ranged from 45.83% to 74.17% and 55% to 88.33%, respectively. Eight high-quality guidelines were identified, and the included PA recommendations were extracted.

CONCLUSION:

There were some disparities in the quality of the included guidelines. Methodological weaknesses were commonly observed in domains "applicability," "values and preferences," and "implementability"; particular attention should be given to these domains when developing future guidelines. Furthermore, this analysis indicated that more rigorous, high-quality studies are needed to generate evidence for supporting PA recommendations and provide guidance on research gaps in the field of cancer rehabilitation.
Assuntos
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Neoplasias Tipo de estudo: Guideline / Prognostic_studies / Systematic_reviews Limite: Humans Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2023 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Neoplasias Tipo de estudo: Guideline / Prognostic_studies / Systematic_reviews Limite: Humans Idioma: En Ano de publicação: 2023 Tipo de documento: Article