Effects of Resistance Training on Breast Cancer-Related Lymphedema: A Meta-Analysis.

Most of the evidence comes from Chinese-language databases: 30 of the 38 trials were published in Chinese and only 8 in English, so the pooled result rests on a body of work many readers cannot check directly. Inconsistency between trials was very high for several outcomes despite subgroup and sensitivity analyses, and the authors say residual confounding remains. Most trials did not report missing data, so it is unclear how women who dropped out were accounted for. Methodological quality varied across the included trials. Bioimpedance results could not be pooled because the trials reported different measures, leaving those conclusions qualitative. The analysis used group averages, so it cannot say what dose suits an individual patient; the authors call for further work on individualised prescriptions. Two included reports come from the same clinical trial cohort and were presented side by side rather than combined. For trials with more than one follow-up point, only the final assessment was used, and follow-up timing varied between studies.

No funding source and no competing-interest declaration appear in the text provided. The authors state only that all data analysed in the review come from the already-published articles included in it.

Do not treat the 'short-duration, high-frequency' schedule as an established prescription. It comes from a subgroup analysis of trials that differed widely in how they measured swelling, and the authors themselves conclude that further research is needed to standardise training programmes.