Table 2.

Methodologic quality of included studies by cancer type

Study quality dimension
CitationTotal1234567891011
Thorsen (35)7+++++++
Brown (36)7+++++++
Culos-Reed (37)7+++++++
Dimeo (38)6++++++
Dimeo (39)7+++++++
Adamsen (40)10++++++++++
Mustain (41)8++++++++
Burnham (42)7+++++++
Shang (43)7+++++++
Breast cancer
Payne (44)5+++++
Galantino (45)4++++
Segal (46)7+++++++
Carson (47)7+++++++
Mutrie (48)10++++++++++
Courneya (49)7+++++++
Mock (50)7+++++++
McKenzie (51)8+++++++
Courneya (52)9+++++++++
Drouin (53)6++++++
Daley (54)7+++++++
Yuen (55)6++++++
Courneya (56)8+++++++
Pinto (57)6++++++
Pinto (58)5+++++
Mock (61)5+++++
Heim (60)6++++++
Mock (61)4++++
Campbell (62)6++++++
Headley (63)3+++
Milne (64)8++++++++
Caldwell (65)7+++++++
Vito (66)7+++++++
Battaglini (67)8++++++++
Barfoot (68)7+++++++
Prostate cancer
Segal (69)6++++++
Windsor (70)6++++++
Segal (71)10++++++++++
Galvao (72)9+++++++++
Lymphoma
Cohen (73)9++++++++
Courneya (74)7+++++++
Jarden (75)7+++++++
Coleman (76)5+++++
Colorectal
Courneya (77)7++++++++
Leukemia
Chang (78)6++++++

NOTE: 1, eligibility criteria; 2, randomization; 3, concealed allocation; 4, baseline similarity of groups; 5, subject blinding; 6, therapist blinding; 7, assessor blinding; 8, outcome measure from >85% of subjects; 9, “intention to treat”; 10, between group statistical comparisons; and 11, point & variability measure.