Skip to main content

Table 4 Summary of findings table for the comparison: aerobic training (HIIT or MICT) vs usual care

From: Prehabilitation programs for individuals with cancer: a systematic review of randomized-controlled trials

Prehabilitation programs for individuals with cancer

Population: adults with colorectal, bladder, and breast cancer

Intervention: aerobic training (HIIT or MCIT)

Comparison: usual care

Setting: clinic/hospital

Outcomes

Relative effect (95% CI)

Anticipated absolute effecta

(95% CI)

Nº of

participants

(studies)

Certainty

of the evidence

(GRADE)

Assumed risk with control

Assumed risk with intervention

HRQoL b (4 weeks)

SF-36, MD 13 (-5 to 30)

59 points

Mean HRQoL in intervention was 13 higher (5 lower to 30 higher)

34 (1 RCT)

 VERY LOW e,f

HRQoL c (12 weeks)

FACT-C, MD 0.9 (-6.2 to 8.0)

62 points

Mean HRQoL in intervention was 0.9 higher (6 lower to 8 higher)

48 (1 RCT)

 VERY LOW e,f

Muscular strength (12 weeks): sit-to-stand test, no. completed in 30 secs

MD -0.6 repetitions (-3.3 to 2.2)

11 repetitions

Mean no. repetitions in intervention was 0.6 lower (3 lower to 2 higher)

48 (1 RCT)

 VERY LOW e,f

Postoperative complications: All grades d (4 to 12 weeks)

Not estimable

-

Evidence of no difference between groups

513 (4 RCTs)

VERY LOW g,h

Average length of stay (1 to 4 weeks)

Not estimable

-

Evidence of no difference between groups

537 (4 RCTs)

VERY LOW g,h

Physical activity levels (4 weeks)

Not estimable

-

Evidence of no difference between groups

448 (2 RCTs)

VERY LOW g,h

  1. aThe risk in the intervention group (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI). CI Confidence interval, HRQoL Health-related quality of life, MD Mean Difference, RR Risk ratio
  2. bShort Form Health Survey (SF-36): higher scores indicate worse physical function
  3. cFunctional Assessment of Cancer Therapy – Colorectal (FACT-C): higher scores mean better quality of life
  4. dThe Clavien-Dindo Classification: higher grades indicate worse outcome
  5. eDowngraded by one level due to incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
  6. fDowngraded by two levels due to small sample size and wide confidence intervals (imprecision)
  7. gDowngraded by two levels due to selection bias, selective outcome reporting, and incomplete outcome data (attrition bias)
  8. hDowngraded by one level due to wide confidence intervals (imprecision)