<HashMap><database>biostudies-literature</database><scores/><additional><submitter>Kelley GA</submitter><funding>National Institute of General Medical Sciences</funding><funding>NIGMS NIH HHS</funding><pagination>693</pagination><full_dataset_link>https://www.ebi.ac.uk/biostudies/studies/S-EPMC5651567</full_dataset_link><repository>biostudies-literature</repository><omics_type>Unknown</omics_type><volume>17(1)</volume><pubmed_abstract>&lt;h4>Background&lt;/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.&lt;h4>Methods&lt;/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</pubmed_abstract><journal>BMC cancer</journal><pubmed_title>Exercise and cancer-related fatigue in adults: a systematic review of previous systematic reviews with meta-analyses.</pubmed_title><pmcid>PMC5651567</pmcid><funding_grant_id>U54GM104942</funding_grant_id><funding_grant_id>U54 GM104942</funding_grant_id><pubmed_authors>Kelley GA</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Kelley KS</pubmed_authors></additional><is_claimable>false</is_claimable><name>Exercise and cancer-related fatigue in adults: a systematic review of previous systematic reviews with meta-analyses.</name><description>&lt;h4>Background&lt;/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.&lt;h4>Methods&lt;/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</description><dates><release>2017-01-01T00:00:00Z</release><publication>2017 Oct</publication><modification>2026-05-06T00:23:50.819Z</modification><creation>2019-03-27T02:59:35Z</creation></dates><accession>S-EPMC5651567</accession><cross_references><pubmed>29058631</pubmed><doi>10.1186/s12885-017-3687-5</doi></cross_references></HashMap>