SynthesisSports medicine - open2026
Individualisation of Exercise Prescription in Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Sports medicine - open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe importance of prescribing individualised exercise programs for all people with cancer has been echoed across the literature. However, there is a notable gap in our understanding of how exercise individualisation is applied in oncology research, what the common individualisation practises of exercise prescription for people with cancer are, and the effects of these practises on common symptoms such as fatigue.
objectivesThe aims of this systematic review and meta-analysis were to elucidate the individualisation prescription methods employed in exercise oncology research, determine whether current studies employ best-practice autoregulatory prescription for people with and following treatment for cancer, and conduct subgroup analyses to determine the influence of exercise individualisation methodology on fatigue severity.
methodsA systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, and Web of Science databases. Studies written in English stating they prescribed any form of 'individualised' exercise for people ≥ 18 years with a histologically confirmed diagnosis of cancer were included in this review. Pooled meta-analysis and subgroup meta-analysis were performed using a random-effects model.
resultsSixty-three studies involving 4472 participants were included. The rationale underpinning why exercise was individualised was predominantly based on objective reasons (41%). Most commonly, exercise was individualised pre-session, and inter-session (25%) via modulation of the exercise prescription, whereby exercise prescriptions were adapted in various heterogenous ways (22%). Autoregulation was only explicitly reported in two (3%) studies. Individualising exercise using subjective reasoning was significantly associated with reduced fatigue severity (SMD = - 0.355, 95% CI - 0.631 to - 0.079; p = 0.0116). Timing exercise individualisation inter-session had a moderate and significant pooled effect on reducing fatigue severity (SMD = - 0.616, 95% CI - 0.962 to - 0.271; p = 0.0005).
conclusionsThis review highlights most exercise oncology studies individualise exercise at baseline only, with this being broadly reported via modulation of the exercise prescription, which may not meet the needs of people with cancer, given their often-fluctuating symptoms and clinical status. Fatigue severity may be reduced by individualising exercise prescription using subjective assessments and by timing the individualisation between sessions. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: The original protocol was registered with the Open Science Framework on 28 April 2022 ( https://osf.io/d6tkv/ ).
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.