Journal of geriatric oncology · 2026
Dose-response relationship between exercise interventions and quality of life in older adults with cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
СтатьяСистематический обзорМетаанализНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Wang Yaxin, Gao Ziqi, Yang Huimin, Liu Chang, Wu Jiahe, Li Kun, Kang Jianxin
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: We aimed to systematically evaluate the effects of exercise interventions on quality of life in older adults with cancer and to explore the dose-response relationships associated with key exercise prescription parameters.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted searches of PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library; standardized mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using a random-effects model. Subgroup analyses were performed to identify potential effect modifiers, and dose-response models were constructed to quantify the relationship between exercise dose and quality-of-life outcomes.
RESULTS: A total of 32 studies involving 2557 older adults with cancer were included. Meta-analysis demonstrated that exercise interventions significantly improved quality of life (SMD = 0.27, 95% CI: 0.14-0.41). Subgroup analyses suggested that intervention characteristics were associated with differential effects, with relatively greater improvements observed in studies with intervention durations of 8-12 weeks (SMD = 0.37, 95% CI: 0.19-0.56, p = 0.003), a frequency of three sessions per week (SMD = 0.36, 95% CI: 0.18-0.54, p < 0.001), and session durations of less than 45 min (SMD = 0.39, 95% CI: 0.23-0.55, p < 0.001). Dose-response analysis indicated that the effect peaked at an overall weekly exercise volume of approximately 962.94 MET·min/week (Hedges' g = 0.41, 95% CI: 0.18-0.64).
DISCUSSION: Exercise interventions significantly improve quality of life in older adults with cancer, with a weekly exercise volume of approximately 962.94 MET·min/week associated with greater improvements. Although exercise frequency and other parameters are related to quality of life, current evidence remains insufficient to support a standardized prescription, and individualized approaches should be considered.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We conducted searches of PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library; standardized mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using a random-effects model. Subgroup analyses were performed to identify potential effect modifiers, and dose-response models were constructed to quantify the relationship between exercise dose and quality-of-life outcomes.
RESULTS: A total of 32 studies involving 2557 older adults with cancer were included. Meta-analysis demonstrated that exercise interventions significantly improved quality of life (SMD = 0.27, 95% CI: 0.14-0.41). Subgroup analyses suggested that intervention characteristics were associated with differential effects, with relatively greater improvements observed in studies with intervention durations of 8-12 weeks (SMD = 0.37, 95% CI: 0.19-0.56, p = 0.003), a frequency of three sessions per week (SMD = 0.36, 95% CI: 0.18-0.54, p < 0.001), and session durations of less than 45 min (SMD = 0.39, 95% CI: 0.23-0.55, p < 0.001). Dose-response analysis indicated that the effect peaked at an overall weekly exercise volume of approximately 962.94 MET·min/week (Hedges' g = 0.41, 95% CI: 0.18-0.64).
DISCUSSION: Exercise interventions significantly improve quality of life in older adults with cancer, with a weekly exercise volume of approximately 962.94 MET·min/week associated with greater improvements. Although exercise frequency and other parameters are related to quality of life, current evidence remains insufficient to support a standardized prescription, and individualized approaches should be considered.