***TASK***
the task is to simplify the input abstract of a biomedical literature

***INPUT***
the input is the abstract of a biomedical literature

***OUTPUT***
the output is the simplified abstract for the input abstract of a biomedical literature

***DOCUMENTATION***

***EXAMPLES***

Input: Eleven studies (835 participants) compared exercise to usual care. No studies compared exercise with no treatment or non-exercise interventions. The quality of the evidence was very low for the primary outcome rates of falls, and very low to low for the secondary outcomes. We downgraded the evidence due to study limitations (risk of bias), and issues of imprecision due to small sample sizes, inconsistency and indirectness. All studies were at high risk of bias for blinding of participants and personnel due to inability to blind participants to an exercise intervention. Risk of bias was generally low or unclear for other categories. There was generally little information on the important outcomes comparing exercise to usual care. Rates of falls and number of fallers: one study (223 participants) measured accidental falls, but reported neither the rate of falls or the number of fallers; there was no difference in the number of falls between exercise and usual care (very low-quality evidence). Strength: 10 studies (813 participants) reported on strength outcomes. Two analyses favoured exercise over usual care: quadriceps strength (2 studies, 72 participants; mean difference (MD) 8.99 kg, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.29 to 16.70; low-quality evidence), and leg press (4 studies, 388 participants; MD 21.1 kg, 95% CI 8.47 to 33.74; low-quality evidence). In one analysis of the Sit-to-Stand Test, there was no difference between exercise and usual care (4 studies, 214 participants; standardised mean difference (SMD) –0.45, 95% CI –1.05 to 0.14; very low-quality evidence). Flexibility: one study (21 participants) reported on flexibility for Sit-and-Reach Distance (MD 2.05 cm, 95% CI 0.59 to 3.51; very low-quality evidence). Balance: five studies (350 participants) measured three different balance outcomes. Two analyses favoured exercise over usual care: postural balance (4 studies, 127 participants; standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.44, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.79; very low-quality evidence), and Backward Walk Test (2 studies, 280 participants; SMD –0.24, 95% CI –0.48 to –0.01; low-quality evidence). There was no difference between exercise and usual care for the Timed Up-and-Go Test (1 study, 15 participants; MD –0.35 seconds, 95% CI –1.47 to 0.77; low-quality evidence). Number of people sustaining a fall-related fracture: the quality of the evidence for exercise reducing fall-related fractures was very low. Adverse events: a single study (223 participants) noted some temporary muscle soreness on initiation of exercise or when there was an increase in the weight lifted. As no occurrence data were reported, we could not assess this variable further. No studies reported musculoskeletal injury. Analysis indicated that there was very low-quality evidence that exercise did not increase fatigue. There is a paucity of evidence for exercise training to reduce fall rates in people living with and beyond cancer. Exercise training may improve strength, flexibility and balance for people in this population, but the evidence is very low quality.
Output:

In July 2018, we searched for clinical trials about exercise to reduce falls in adults living with and beyond cancer. We found 11 studies of variable quality and size, including a total of 835 people, that compared exercise to usual care. Most of the studies were very small, four with fewer than 30 people. Only one study reported on accidental falls. All 11 studies reported on one or more measures that are risk factors for falling (e.g. strength, flexibility and balance). We rated the quality of the evidence from the studies using four levels: very low, low, moderate or high. Very low-quality evidence means that we are very uncertain about the results. High-quality evidence means that we are very confident in the results. The quality of the evidence was very low to low across all of the measures of interest. There were several weaknesses identified in the design of all studies including small numbers of participants. No study could prevent participants knowing their treatment and so there could have been bias. Only one study looked at the effect of exercise on accidental falls and found no difference in number of falls between people who exercised and people who did not (very low-quality evidence). Therefore, there were insufficient data for conclusions to be drawn regarding the effects of exercise on reducing accidental falls for people living with and beyond cancer. There was improvement in some factors that are known to affect falls; we found improvement in some measures of strength, flexibility and balance, although the overall quality of this evidence was very low to low.