09, chi2 = 5.78, df = 2, p = 0.06, I2 = 65%). When the study by Ahmed and colleagues 39 was excluded from analysis (not shown in Figure 8), however, the heterogeneity reduced to moderate (Tau2 = 0.04, chi2 = 2.10, df = 1, p = 0.15, I2 = 52%). That study may have varied due to the

absence of methodological features to control bias, which included allocation concealment, blinding and attrition. Overall findings of this review revealed that supervised weight-training selleck inhibitor exercise does not increase the risk or severity of BCRL and it improves muscle strength of the limbs, as well as physical components of quality of life. These findings are similar to the conclusions of recent reviews,18 and 19 although the present review additionally provides the statistical pooling of data, which is generally considered to be more precise.48 The finding that weight training does not increase the risk or severity of BCRL is very relevant to physiotherapists managing women with BCRL, because weight training has many physical, psychological and clinical benefits. This finding does contradict some other studies. For example, the lymphatic function study by Lane and colleagues17 showed increased lymphoedema with exercise training,

but this study was not a prospective clinical trial. Participants in all trials used pressure garments and received supervision, and no trials Dolutegravir used high-intensity weight training. Pressure garments, supervision and limiting the intensity of the weight training may each be important, but the present review could not confirm this. Previous reviews18 and 19 suggested that supervision may not only help in learning the exercise program appropriately, but also in alleviating the fear of developing BCRL among women. Overall, muscle strength improved significantly more with weight training than the control.

Furthermore, this improvement was significant even when the control groups did aerobic exercise.26 According to the theoretical assumptions of included studies, weight training may provide adequate strength to protect the arm from accidental injuries isothipendyl by reducing the relative stress of daily activities.21 Another important finding is that weight training improved muscle strength irrespective of adjuvant treatment status.26 A review by Cheema and colleagues4 suggested that upper body function and strength are of the utmost importance in breast cancer survivors post-surgery. Improved arm strength might give women a sense of control over their daily activities and prevent a spiral of disuse atrophy and associated impairments. Although a recent meta-analysis showed a significant reduction in body mass index as a result of physical activity intervention in people with breast cancer,49 the pooled effect in the present review was inconclusive. This lack of effect may be due to the low intensity of the exercise interventions delivered in these studies, which may need a prolonged period of training to be effective.