Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38570403›Full record

SynthesisJournal of cancer survivorship : research and practice2025

Retention rates and reasons for non-retention in exercise oncology trials in the post-treatment phase-a systematic review.

S Hu, E Guinan, D Mockler, L O'Neill

Open access · hybridAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of cancer survivorship : research and practice, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 14% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Exercise for survivorship: outcomes associated with a community-based group exercise program for adolescent and young adult cancer survivors.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

S HuSchool of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Trinity College Dublin, University of Dublin, Dublin 8, Ireland.
E GuinanTrinity St. James's Cancer Institute, Dublin, Ireland.
D MocklerJohn Stearne Library, Trinity Centre for Health Sciences, St. James's Hospital, Dublin, Ireland.
L O'NeillTrinity St. James's Cancer Institute, Dublin, Ireland. loneill4@tcd.ie.
St. James's Hospital · IETrinity College Dublin · IE

Funding

HRB-Trials Methodology Research Network Ireland HRB-TMRN-2021-001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeRetention is a key marker of trial success. Poor retention can induce bias, reduce statistical power and minimise the validity of trials. This review examined retention rates in exercise trials in cancer survivors, reasons for non-retention and retention strategies utilised.

methodsA systematic review was conducted using a predefined search strategy in EMBASE RCTs, MEDLINE OVID, CINAHL, Web of Science-Core Collection and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL). The search was conducted on 27/03/2023. Title and abstract screening, full text review and data extraction were completed in duplicate.

resultsOf 17,524 studies identified, 67 trials involving 6093 participants were included. The median overall retention rate immediately post-intervention was 89.85%, range (52.94-100%) and mean 87.36% (standard deviation 9.89%). Trials involving colorectal cancer survivors only had the highest median retention rate (94.61%), followed by breast (92.74%), prostate (86.00%) and haematological cancers (85.49%). Studies involving mixed cancer cohorts had the lowest retention rate (80.18%). The most common retention strategies were wait-list control groups, regular check-ins/reminders and free exercise equipment. Common reasons for non-retention were lost to follow-up, health problems, personal reasons including family/work commitments and travel burden, and disease progression.

conclusionsRetention rates in exercise oncology trials are approximately 90% immediately post-interventions. Our previous work highlighted variable suboptimal recruitment rates of median 38% (range 0.52-100%). Recruitment rather than retention should be prioritised for methodology research in exercise oncology. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Optimising the quality of exercise oncology trials is critical to informing high quality survivorship care. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42023421359.

Indexed as

Cancer SurvivorsExerciseExercise TherapyNeoplasmsHumansCancer survivorshipExercise oncologyRetention strategiesTrial retention

Identifiers

PMID38570403
PMCPMC12460456
OpenAlexW4393857919

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.