ReviewJournal of rehabilitation medicine2025
Effectiveness of rehabilitation interventions in patients with colorectal cancer: an overview of systematic reviews.
Review in Journal of rehabilitation medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Nationwide Implementation of Multimodal Prehabilitation and Complications After Colorectal Cancer Surgery.JAMA surgery · 2026Article
- Management of bowel dysfunction after pelvic surgery for endometriosis.International journal of colorectal disease · 2026Review
- Embedding Rehabilitation as Core Cancer Care in Australia and New Zealand: A Health System Imperative.The Medical journal of Australia · 2026Article
- Article
- Integrating Telerehabilitation into the Prehabilitation and Rehabilitation Pathway in Colorectal Cancer: A Case Series.Reports (MDPI) · 2025Article
- Evaluation of the Clinical Functioning Information Tool (ClinFIT) in Colorectal Surgical Prehabilitation: A Prospective Observational Study.Advances in rehabilitation science and practiceArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate existing evidence from published systematic reviews for the effectiveness and safety of rehabilitation interventions in adult patients with colorectal cancer.
methodsA comprehensive literature search was conducted using medical/health science databases up to October 2024. Bibliographies of pertinent articles, journals, and grey literature were searched. Three reviewers independently selected potential reviews, assessed methodological quality, and graded the quality of evidence for outcomes using validated tools.
resultsSixty systematic reviews (761 randomized controlled trials) evaluated 5 categories of rehabilitation interventions. Over half of the included reviews (n = 31) were of moderate-high quality. The findings suggest: moderate-quality evidence for exercise interventions for improving physical fitness and quality of life; high-quality evidence for nutritional interventions in reducing postoperative infections; high-quality evidence for multimodal prehabilitation for improved preoperative functional capacity; moderate-quality evidence for nutritional interventions for improving humoral immunity, reducing inflammation, and length of stay; moderate-quality evidence for acupuncture in improving gastrointestinal functional recovery; psychosocial interventions in improving short-term quality of life and mental health, and lifestyle interventions for improved quality of life.
conclusionRehabilitation interventions yielded positive effects across multiple outcomes. However, high-quality evidence is still needed to determine the most effective rehabilitation approaches for patients with colorectal cancer.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
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.