Exercise across the Lung Cancer Care Continuum: An Overview of Systematic Reviews

Ref ID 866
First Author L. Edbrooke
Journal JOURNAL OF CLINICAL MEDICINE
Year Of Publishing 2023
URL https://www.mdpi.com/2077-0383/12/5/1871
Keywords Protocols
Oncology
Risk of bias
Pre-specification
Low reporting quality
Low methodological quality
Problem(s) Lack of prespecification in eligibility criteria
Reasons for excluding potentially eligible studies not provided
Limited quality assessment or no risk of bias
Selective reporting of harms / safety / adverse events / side effects
Low methodological (AMSTAR) quality
Number of systematic reviews included 30
Summary of Findings From 20 included systematic reviews on the efficacy and safety of exercise for people with both operable and inoperable lung cancer indexed across 8 databases from inception until 21 February 2022. AMSTAR-2 ratings were ‘critically low’ in 22 (73.3%), ‘low’ in 7 (23.3%) and ‘moderate’ in 1 (3.3%) of the included Systematic Reviews. Only nine systematic reviews (30%) provided a list with justification for excluded studies and twenty (66.6%) did not account for individual study risk of bias in interpreting findings. Eighteen of the systematic reviews (60%) did not provide justification for their study design inclusion criteria. Only three systematic reviews, across both operable and inoperable populations, synthesised safety (adverse event) findings and all three reported few adverse events associated with exercise across the lung cancer care continuum.
Did the article find that the problem(s) led to qualitative changes in interpretation of the results? Not Applicable
Are the methods of the article described in enough detail to replicate the study? Yes