SynthesisFrontiers in oncology2026
A systematic review and meta-analysis of the effects of walking training on cardiorespiratory fitness in cancer patients.
Synthesis in Frontiers in oncology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Objective: Walking is a simple and accessible form of aerobic exercise that may improve cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) in cancer patients; however, its independent effects remain unclear. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effects of walking training on CRF, fatigue, dyspnea, safety, and adherence in adult cancer patients. Methods: A systematic search was conducted in 4 databases-Web of Science, Embase, PubMed, and Cochrane Library Database-covering the period from the inception of each database through November 28, 2025. The inclusion criteria were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating walking interventions for cancer patients. Priority was given to meta-analyses of outcome measures using a random-effects model. If the statistical heterogeneity is less than 40%, a fixed-effects model is used. Results: 11 randomized controlled trials involving 649 participants were included. Compared with standard care or no intervention, walking training was associated with statistically significant improvements in the two outcomes: peak oxygen uptake (VO Conclusion: Current evidence suggests that walking training may improve VO Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier CRD420251140743.
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.