Dataset Information

Physical activity and pain in people with cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

Physical activity can provide analgesic benefit but its effect on cancer-related pain is unclear. This review synthesised and appraised the evidence for the effect of physical activity on pain in people living with or beyond cancer.

Methods

A systematic search of Ovid Medline and Embase was performed to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs), randomised cross-over studies (RXTs), and prospective observational studies that examined physical activity and pain outcomes in adults living with or beyond cancer. Meta-analyses were performed to generate effect estimates. Risk of bias was assessed, and the GRADE system was used to assess evidence quality.

Results

One hundred twenty-one studies (n = 13,806), including 102 RCTs, 6 RXTs, and 13 observational studies, met the criteria for inclusion. Meta-analyses of RCTs identified a decrease in pain intensity (n = 3734; standardised mean difference (SMD) - 0.30; 95% confidence interval (CI) - 0.45, - 0.15) and bodily pain (n = 1170; SMD 0.28; 95% CI 0.01, 0.56) but not pain interference (n = 207; SMD - 0.13, 95% CI - 0.42, 0.15) following physical activity interventions. Individual studies also identified a reduction in pain sensitivity but not analgesic use, although meta-analysis was not possible for these outcomes. High heterogeneity between studies, low certainty in some effect estimates, and possible publication bias meant that evidence quality was graded as very low to low.

Conclusion

Physical activity may decrease pain in people living with and beyond cancer; however, high heterogeneity limits the ability to generalise this finding to all people with cancer or to specific types of cancer-related pain.

SUBMITTER: Peters M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10847204 | biostudies-literature | 2024 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Physical activity and pain in people with cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Peters Mitchell M Butson Grace G Mizrahi David D Denehy Linda L Lynch Brigid M BM Swain Christopher T V CTV

Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer 20240206 3

<h4>Purpose</h4>Physical activity can provide analgesic benefit but its effect on cancer-related pain is unclear. This review synthesised and appraised the evidence for the effect of physical activity on pain in people living with or beyond cancer.<h4>Methods</h4>A systematic search of Ovid Medline and Embase was performed to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs), randomised cross-over studies (RXTs), and prospective observational studies that examined physical activity and pain outcomes ...[more]

PMID: 38321248

Similar Datasets

Project description:ContextPain and symptoms of patellofemoral pain (PFP) are often exacerbated during daily activities, which may result in reduced overall physical activity levels.ObjectiveTo summarize the evidence for physical activity levels among persons with PFP compared with pain-free controls.Data sourcesPubMed, Embase, CINHAL, Cochrane Library, and SPORTDiscus were searched from January 1, 2000 to February 22, 2024.Study selectionPeer-reviewed studies published in English that measured physical activity subjectively or objectively in persons with PFP and pain-free controls.Study designSystematic review with meta-analysis.Level of evidenceLevel 1.Data extractionStandardized mean difference (SMD) with 95% CI are reported based on Hedges' g effect sizes.ResultsFrom 23,745 records, 41 studies met the eligibility criteria. There was high-to-moderate-certainty evidence that persons with PFP reported higher physical activity levels compared with pain-free controls using the International Physical Activity Questionnaire (SMD, 0.27; 95% CI 0.03, 0.51), whereas lower physical activity levels compared with pain-free controls using the Tegner Activity Scale (SMD, -0.31; 95% CI -0.57, -0.04). There was low-to-moderate-certainty evidence that there was no group difference in physical activity levels using the Baecke Physical Activity Questionnaire (SMD, 0.17; 95% CI -0.09, 0.44) or self-reported sports participation duration (SMD, -0.46; 95% CI -0.98, 0.05). There was high-certainty evidence that runners with PFP reported shorter running distances compared with pain-free runners (SMD, -0.36, 95% CI -0.57, -0.14). No data pooling was possible for objectively measured physical activity levels due to device heterogeneity (ie, different algorithms used to quantify the intensity of physical activity).ConclusionSelf-reported physical activity levels among persons with PFP were inconsistent depending on the physical activity measurement tool used or which specific physical activity was measured. Clinicians should integrate multiple physical activity assessment tools to determine the extent to which PFP influences physical activity levels.Trial registrationPROSPERO #CRD42022314598.

Project description:IntroductionLow back pain and neck pain are leading causes of disability. Although several studies have examined the effect of exercise on fear of movement in people with spine-related pain, the overall evidence supporting the beneficial effect of different forms of exercise on fear of movement remains unknown. This systematic review will determine the strength of evidence for the effect of exercise/physical activity on fear of movement in people with non-specific spine-related pain.Methods/analysisThis review protocol was developed following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Protocols. The review will include randomised controlled trials and non-randomised studies that recruited adults (≥18 years) with chronic non-specific spine-related pain and where a validated measure of fear of movement/kinesiophobia such as the Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia (TSK) and the Fear Avoidance Behaviour Questionnaire (FABQ) or any other validated measures to ascertain fear of movement/kinesiophobia was employed. Bibliographic databases include MEDLINE, PsycINFO, EMBASE, CINAHL, ZETOC, Web of Science, PubMed and Google Scholar as well as key journals/grey literature will be searched from inception to 31 January 2022. Only articles published in English will be considered eligible. Two independent reviewers will search, screen studies, extract data and assess risk of bias. Preintervention and postintervention mean and SD with 95% CI of the outcome data (TSK or FABQ) will be extracted or estimated where possible. If possible, study results will be pooled into a meta-analysis. A narrative synthesis of the results will be presented if heterogeneity is high. The overall quality of evidence and risk of bias will be assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation and Risk Of Bias in Non-randomised Studies of Interventions guidelines.Ethics and disseminationThis systematic review does not require ethical approval as existing data will be used. The results will be disseminated through a peer-reviewed journal and via national and international conferences.Prospero registration numberCRD42021295755.

Project description:BackgroundPhysical activity may protect against bladder cancer through several biologic pathways, such as enhanced immune function and decreased chronic inflammation. Physical activity may also indirectly prevent bladder cancer by reducing obesity. A sizeable number of epidemiologic studies have examined the association between physical activity and bladder cancer, but the available evidence has not yet been formally summarised using meta-analysis.MethodsWe performed a systematic literature review and meta-analysis of English-language studies published from January 1975 through November 2013. We followed the PRISMA guidelines and used a random effects model to estimate the summary risk estimates for the association between physical activity and bladder cancer.ResultsA total of 15 studies with 5,402,369 subjects and 27,784 bladder cancer cases were included. High vs low levels of physical activity were related to decreased bladder cancer risk (summary relative risk (RR)=0.85, 95% confidence interval (CI)=0.74-0.98; I(2)=83%; P-value for heterogeneity across all studies<0.001). Results were similar for cohort studies (RR=0.89, 95% CI=0.80-1.00; I(2)=64%) and case-control studies (RR=0.71, 95% CI=0.43-1.16; I(2)=87%; P-value for difference=0.108) and they were comparable for women (RR=0.83, 95% CI=0.73-0.94; I(2)=0%) and men (RR=0.92, 95% CI=0.82-1.05; I(2)=67; P-value for difference=0.657). Findings were also comparable for recreational (RR=0.81, 95% CI=0.66-0.99; I(2)=77%) and occupational physical activity (RR=0.90, 95% CI=0.76-1.0; I(2)=76%; P-value for difference=0.374), and they were largely consistent for moderate (RR=0.85, 95% CI=0.75-0.98; I(2)=76%) and vigorous activity (RR=0.80, 95% CI=0.64-1.00;I(2)=87%; P-value for difference=0.535).ConclusionsPhysical activity is associated with decreased risk of bladder cancer. Further studies are required to assess the relations of intensity, frequency, duration, and timing in life of physical activity to bladder cancer risk.

Project description:Introduction:The objectives of this review paper were to synthesize the data from randomized controlled trials in the literature to come to a conclusion on the effects of e-health interventions on promoting physical activity in older people. Methods:The Medline, CINAHL, Embase, PsycINFO, and SportDiscus databases were searched for articles about studies that 1) recruited subjects with a mean age of >?50?years, 2) tested e-health interventions, 3) employed control groups with no or less advanced e-health strategies, 4) measured physical activity as an outcome, 5) were published between 1st January 2008 and 31st May 2019, and 6) employed randomized controlled trials. The risk of bias in individual studies was assessed using the Physiotherapy Evidence Database scale. To examine the effects of the interventions, variables quantifying the amount of physical activity were extracted. The within-group effects of individual studies were summarized using Hedges g and 95% confidence intervals. Between-group effects were summarized by meta-analyses using RevMan 5.0 with a random effect model. Results:Of the 2810 identified studies, 38 were eligible, 25 were included in the meta-analyses. The within-group effect sizes (Hedges g) of physical activity in the intervention group at T1 ranged from small to large: physical activity time (0.12 to 0.84), step counts (-?0.01 to 11.19), energy expenditure (-?0.05 to 0.86), walking time (0.13 to 3.33), and sedentary time (-?0.12 to -?0.28). The delayed effects as observed in T2 and T3 also ranged from small to large: physical activity time (0.24 to 1.24) and energy expenditure (0.15 to 1.32). In the meta-analysis, the between-group effect of the e-health intervention on physical activity time measured by questionnaires, physical activity time measured by objective wearable devices, energy expenditure, and step counts were all significant with minimal heterogeneity. Conclusion:E-health interventions are effective at increasing the time spent on physical activity, energy expenditure in physical activity, and the number of walking steps. It is recommended that e-health interventions be included in guidelines to enhance physical activity in older people. Further studies should be conducted to determine the most effective e-health strategies.

Dataset Information

Physical activity and pain in people with cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Physical activity and pain in people with cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets