| Title |
Effects of physical exercise on breast cancer-related secondary lymphedema: a systematic review
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Breast Cancer Research and Treatment, February 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10549-018-4725-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
F. T. Baumann, A. Reike, V. Reimer, M. Schumann, M. Hallek, D. R. Taaffe, R. U. Newton, D. A. Galvao |
| Abstract |
The aim of this systematic review is to assess the effect of different types of exercise on breast cancer-related lymphedema (BCRL) in order to elucidate the role of exercise in this patient group. A systematic data search was performed using PubMed (December 2016). The review is focused on the rehabilitative aspect of BCRL and undertaken according to the PRISMA statement with Levels of Evidence (LoE) assessed. 11 randomized controlled trials (9 with LoE 1a and 2 with LoE 1b) that included 458 women with breast cancer in aftercare were included. The different types of exercise consisted of aqua lymph training, swimming, resistance exercise, yoga, aerobic, and gravity-resistive exercise. Four of the studies measured a significant reduction in BCRL status based on arm volume and seven studies reported significant subjective improvements. No study showed adverse effects of exercise on BCRL. The evidence indicates that exercise can improve subjective and objective parameters in BCRL patients, with dynamic, moderate, and high-frequency exercise appearing to provide the most positive effects. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 69 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 12 | 17% |
| United Kingdom | 10 | 14% |
| Canada | 7 | 10% |
| Australia | 4 | 6% |
| Brazil | 2 | 3% |
| Germany | 2 | 3% |
| Chile | 1 | 1% |
| Italy | 1 | 1% |
| Mexico | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 4 | 6% |
| Unknown | 25 | 36% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 46 | 67% |
| Scientists | 14 | 20% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 9 | 13% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 335 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 335 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 51 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 37 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 29 | 9% |
| Other | 22 | 7% |
| Researcher | 20 | 6% |
| Other | 57 | 17% |
| Unknown | 119 | 36% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Nursing and Health Professions | 69 | 21% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 60 | 18% |
| Sports and Recreations | 36 | 11% |
| Social Sciences | 8 | 2% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 5 | 1% |
| Other | 22 | 7% |
| Unknown | 135 | 40% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 47. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 16 April 2023.
All research outputs
#910,816
of 25,856,138 outputs
Outputs from Breast Cancer Research and Treatment
#87
of 5,012 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#20,158
of 346,921 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Breast Cancer Research and Treatment
#1
of 81 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,856,138 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,012 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 346,921 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 81 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.