Search

Objectives The primary purpose of this systematic review is to examine the extant resistance training (RT) cancer research to evaluate the proportion of RT interventions that: (1) implemented key RT training principles (specificity, progression, overload) and (2) explicitly reported relevant RT prescription components (frequency, intensity, sets, reps). Design A qualitative systematic review was performed by two reviewers (CMF and PNH) who inspected the titles and abstracts to determine eligibility for this systematic review. Identified papers were obtained in full and further reviewed. Data were extracted to evaluate the application of principles of training, along with specific RT components. Data sources Electronic databases (PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane, PEDro, PsychInfo, Cancer Lit, Sport Discus, AMED, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) and reference lists of included articles from inception to May 2016. Results 37 studies were included. The principle of specificity was used appropriately in all of the studies, progression in 65% and overload in 76% of the studies. The most common exercise prescription (∼50%) implemented in the studies included in this review were 2–3 days/week, focusing on large muscle groups, 60–70% 1 repetition maximum (RM), 1–3 sets of 8–12 repetitions. Conclusions Reporting of RT principles in an oncology setting varies greatly, with often vague or non-existent references to the principles of training and how the RT prescription was designed.

We thank Neil-Sztramko et al 1 for their interest in our paper2 where they outline concerns they suggest may confound what can be concluded from the findings. We address each of their concerns below. A more detailed response to the authors can be found in the online supplementary file. Neil-Sztramko et al raise an excellent point regarding the relevance of evaluating if inclusion of multiple papers from larger trials may have meaningfully influenced the percentage of studies we categorised as implementing the resistance training (RT) principles of interest. Accordingly, we recalculated the results after removing papers that represented secondary analyses of larger trials and added the studies they suggested be included. The revised recalculation, involved 29 studies and yielded implementation rates of 72% for …