TY - JOUR
T1 - What information can we gain from the quality appraisal of guidelines with physical activity recommendations for cancer patients?A systematic review using the AGREE II and AGREE-REX tools
AU - Zhou, Xue
AU - Yang, Yujie
AU - Li, Conghui
AU - Gu, Shanshan
AU - Hou, Weiqian
AU - Lai, Xigui
AU - Zhai, Liwen
AU - Zhu, Yi
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2022, The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.
PY - 2023/1
Y1 - 2023/1
N2 - Purpose: There has been growing amount of evidence supporting the benefits of physical activity (PA) on oncological patients’ cancer-related health outcomes. Although guidelines on cancer rehabilitation are widely available, the varying quality and practical applicability limited the clinical application of PA recommendations. To assist the future development of guidelines, in this systematic review, we evaluated the quality and applicability of current cancer rehabilitation guidelines with PA recommendations and synthesized PA recommendations for the oncological population. Methods: A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, CINAHL, PEDro, EMBASE, and guideline repositories to identify guidelines with PA recommendations for cancer patients from 1 May 2016 to 1 June 2022. The quality of included guidelines was appraised using the tools “Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II” (AGREE II) and AGREE-REX (Recommendation Excellence). PA recommendations were synthesized from the guidelines. Results: Sixteen guidelines were extracted. The AGREE II domain “clarity of presentation” obtained the highest score, while “applicability” received the lowest, ranging from 33.33% to 98.58%. The AGREE-REX domains “values and preferences” and “implementability” generally scored lower and ranged from 45.83% to 74.17% and 55% to 88.33%, respectively. Eight high-quality guidelines were identified, and the included PA recommendations were extracted. Conclusion: There were some disparities in the quality of the included guidelines. Methodological weaknesses were commonly observed in domains “applicability,” “values and preferences,” and “implementability”; particular attention should be given to these domains when developing future guidelines. Furthermore, this analysis indicated that more rigorous, high-quality studies are needed to generate evidence for supporting PA recommendations and provide guidance on research gaps in the field of cancer rehabilitation.
AB - Purpose: There has been growing amount of evidence supporting the benefits of physical activity (PA) on oncological patients’ cancer-related health outcomes. Although guidelines on cancer rehabilitation are widely available, the varying quality and practical applicability limited the clinical application of PA recommendations. To assist the future development of guidelines, in this systematic review, we evaluated the quality and applicability of current cancer rehabilitation guidelines with PA recommendations and synthesized PA recommendations for the oncological population. Methods: A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, CINAHL, PEDro, EMBASE, and guideline repositories to identify guidelines with PA recommendations for cancer patients from 1 May 2016 to 1 June 2022. The quality of included guidelines was appraised using the tools “Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II” (AGREE II) and AGREE-REX (Recommendation Excellence). PA recommendations were synthesized from the guidelines. Results: Sixteen guidelines were extracted. The AGREE II domain “clarity of presentation” obtained the highest score, while “applicability” received the lowest, ranging from 33.33% to 98.58%. The AGREE-REX domains “values and preferences” and “implementability” generally scored lower and ranged from 45.83% to 74.17% and 55% to 88.33%, respectively. Eight high-quality guidelines were identified, and the included PA recommendations were extracted. Conclusion: There were some disparities in the quality of the included guidelines. Methodological weaknesses were commonly observed in domains “applicability,” “values and preferences,” and “implementability”; particular attention should be given to these domains when developing future guidelines. Furthermore, this analysis indicated that more rigorous, high-quality studies are needed to generate evidence for supporting PA recommendations and provide guidance on research gaps in the field of cancer rehabilitation.
KW - AGREE II
KW - AGREE-REX
KW - Cancer
KW - Physical activity
KW - Practice guideline
KW - Rehabilitation
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/85145613915
U2 - 10.1007/s00520-022-07567-5
DO - 10.1007/s00520-022-07567-5
M3 - 文献综述
C2 - 36598576
AN - SCOPUS:85145613915
SN - 0941-4355
VL - 31
JO - Supportive Care in Cancer
JF - Supportive Care in Cancer
IS - 1
M1 - 97
ER -