Following this puts new work involving it at the top of your briefing, with a note saying why it is there. Links are taken from the source record, never inferred.
A single-centre RCT with sound design (randomised, parallel-group) and statistically significant results on fatigue and functional outcomes in a moderately sized sample, but lacking hard clinical endpoints and with open design that limits generalisability.
A well-designed RCT in an understudied population showing feasibility and safety of exercise during chemotherapy, with secondary benefits in strength preservation and toxicity reduction, though the primary fatigue endpoint was not met.
This is an early-stage adaptation and usability study of a newly modified intervention with a single small uncontrolled group, generating preliminary evidence of acceptability but not efficacy.
A narrative review mapping educational infrastructure and proposing priorities for integrative oncology workforce development, informing professional practice and curriculum planning rather than testing a clinical hypothesis.
A single-centre, underpowered cross-sectional pilot study explicitly designed as hypothesis-generating, with a null primary finding that the authors acknowledge cannot rule out a clinically meaningful effect.
A scoping review mapping the landscape of non-pharmacological interventions without quality assessment, effect synthesis, or meta-analysis; descriptive and gap-identifying rather than outcome-determining.
A well-designed prospective cohort study with 24-month follow-up and multivariate analysis identifies modifiable psychological mediators of post-treatment fatigue in breast cancer survivors, with clear effect sizes and controlled comparators.
A narrative review synthesizing current evidence and proposing a non-validated, author-derived clinical framework for cardio-oncology rehabilitation, grounded in existing trials but not itself presenting new clinical data or meeting criteria for practice-changing or strong evidence.