{"database":"biostudies-literature","file_versions":[],"scores":null,"additional":{"submitter":["Kelley GA"],"funding":["National Institute of General Medical Sciences","NIGMS NIH HHS"],"pagination":["693"],"full_dataset_link":["https://www.ebi.ac.uk/biostudies/studies/S-EPMC5651567"],"repository":["biostudies-literature"],"omics_type":["Unknown"],"volume":["17(1)"],"pubmed_abstract":["<h4>Background</h4>Conduct a systematic review of previous systematic reviews with meta-analysis to determine the effects of exercise (aerobic, strength or both) on cancer-related-fatigue (CRF) in adults with any type of cancer.<h4>Methods</h4>Systematic reviews with meta-analyses of previous randomized controlled trials published through July of 2016 were included by searching six electronic databases and cross-referencing. Dual-selection and data abstraction were conducted. Methodological quality was assessed using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) instrument. Standardized mean differences (SMD) that were pooled using random-effects models were included as the effect size. In addition, 95% prediction intervals (PI), number needed-to-treat (NNT) and percentile improve"],"journal":["BMC cancer"],"pubmed_title":["Exercise and cancer-related fatigue in adults: a systematic review of previous systematic reviews with meta-analyses."],"pmcid":["PMC5651567"],"funding_grant_id":["U54GM104942","U54 GM104942"],"pubmed_authors":["Kelley GA","Kelley KS"],"additional_accession":[]},"is_claimable":false,"name":"Exercise and cancer-related fatigue in adults: a systematic review of previous systematic reviews with meta-analyses.","description":"<h4>Background</h4>Conduct a systematic review of previous systematic reviews with meta-analysis to determine the effects of exercise (aerobic, strength or both) on cancer-related-fatigue (CRF) in adults with any type of cancer.<h4>Methods</h4>Systematic reviews with meta-analyses of previous randomized controlled trials published through July of 2016 were included by searching six electronic databases and cross-referencing. Dual-selection and data abstraction were conducted. Methodological quality was assessed using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) instrument. Standardized mean differences (SMD) that were pooled using random-effects models were included as the effect size. In addition, 95% prediction intervals (PI), number needed-to-treat (NNT) and percentile improve","dates":{"release":"2017-01-01T00:00:00Z","publication":"2017 Oct","modification":"2026-05-06T00:23:50.819Z","creation":"2019-03-27T02:59:35Z"},"accession":"S-EPMC5651567","cross_references":{"pubmed":["29058631"],"doi":["10.1186/s12885-017-3687-5"]}}