What is covered by 'Cancer Rehabilitation' in PubMed? A review of randomized controlled trials 1990-2011
Objective: This focused review examines randomized controlled studies included by the term “cancer rehabilitation” in PubMed. The research questions concern the type of interventions performed and their methodological quality. Design: Using the Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms: neoplasm AND reh...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Journal of Rehabilitation Medicine 2014 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext bestellen |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | Objective: This focused review examines randomized controlled
studies included by the term “cancer rehabilitation”
in PubMed. The research questions concern the type of interventions
performed and their methodological quality.
Design: Using the Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) terms:
neoplasm AND rehabilitation, all articles with randomized
controlled studies that included adult cancer patients, written
in English, were extracted from PubMed. Papers covering
physical exercise, psychiatric/psychological treatment or
social support only were excluded as they had been reviewed
recently. Abstracts and papers were assessed by 3 pairs of
reviewers, and descriptive information was extracted systematically.
Methodological quality was rated on a 10-item
index scale, and the cut-off for acceptable quality was set at
≥ 8.
Results: A total of 132 (19%) of the 683 identified papers
met the eligibility criteria and were assessed in detail. The
papers were grouped into 5 thematic categories: 44 physical;
15 art and expressive; 47 psycho-educative; 21 emotionally
supportive; and 5 others. Good quality of design was
observed in 32 studies, 18 of them uni-dimensional and 14
multi-dimensional.
Conclusion: Published randomized controlled studies on
cancer rehabilitation are heterogeneous in terms of content
and samples, and are mostly characterized by suboptimal
design quality. Future studies should be more specific and
well-designed with sufficient statistical strength. |
---|