How Can Alternative Exercise Traditions Help Against the Background of the COVID-19 in Cancer Care? An Overview of Systematic Reviews
Authors Zhang Y, Yao F, Kuang X, Li L, Huang L, Zhou Q, Peng J, Chang Q
Received 17 September 2020
Accepted for publication 20 November 2020
Published 17 December 2020 Volume 2020:12 Pages 12927—12944
Checked for plagiarism Yes
Review by Single anonymous peer review
Peer reviewer comments 3
Editor who approved publication: Professor Bilikere Dwarakanath
Yang Zhang,1 Fang Yao,1 Xiaohong Kuang,1 Lijuan Li,1 Lihua Huang,1 Qi Zhou,1 Jiazhu Peng,1 Qingyu Chang2
1Department of Nursing, Zhangjiagang TCM Hospital Affiliated to Nanjing University of Chinese Medicine, Suzhou 215600, People’s Republic of China; 2Department of Surgery, Zhangjiagang TCM Hospital Affiliated to Nanjing University of Chinese Medicine, Suzhou 215600, People’s Republic of China
Correspondence: Xiaohong Kuang Email [email protected]
Purpose: To evaluate the quality of systematic reviews/meta-analyses (SR/MAs) on alternative exercise traditions in cancer care.
Methods: PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Ovid, EBSCOhost, WanFang Database, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and VIP Database were searched from their inception to June 30, 2020. The search used a combination of subject words and free words. The search terms included “Tai Chi,” “Qigong,” “Baduanjin,” “Yoga,” “Pilates,” “Cancer,” “Meta-analysis,” and “Systematic review.” Two researchers independently performed literature screening and data extraction and used AMSTAR scale and PRISMA statement to evaluate the methodology and the quality of the evidence.
Results: A total of 26 SR/MAs were included. The AMSTAR scale score was 5– 10 points, with an average of 7.46± 1.33 points. Overall, the methodological quality was considered to be moderate. The PRISMA list score was 13– 24 points, with an average of 19.19± 2.86 points. Among the papers evaluated, eight reports were relatively complete. A total of 15 papers indicated certain defects. A total of three papers showed relatively serious information defects.
Conclusion: Relative to the control group, alternative exercise traditions may be effective in improving the quality of life, anxiety, depression, distress, and fatigue of cancer patients. However, they may not necessarily improve patients’ sleep outcome, body mass index, and pain. During convalescence, cancer patients can be encouraged to start engaging in physical exercise, and professionals can develop appropriate exercise alternatives to ensure the expected effect of exercise while ensuring the safety of patients. The methodological quality of the systematic evaluations of the intervention effects of alternative exercise traditions on cancer patients is not satisfactory. Hence, focus should be directed to the improvement of the preliminary design scheme, publication status, literature retrieval, conflict of interest, and other aspects.
Keywgords: alternative exercise traditions, cancer care, COVID-19, overview
This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution - Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License. By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms.Download Article [PDF] View Full Text [HTML][Machine readable]