- Framework of problems / Transparent
- Selective reporting of harms / safety / adverse events / side effects
- 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 |