Research & Evidence
Explore the evidence
Systematic reviews and meta-analyses have reported benefits across areas such as physical fitness, strength, physical function, fatigue and quality of life, although the size and certainty of effects vary between populations and interventions.
A 2026 systematic review and dose-response network meta-analysis published in the British Journal of Sports Medicine included 64 randomised trials involving 5,156 women with breast cancer. It found that combined exercise was particularly effective for fatigue and lean mass, while resistance exercise was particularly effective for physical function and muscle strength. The authors also emphasised the importance of personalised exercise prescription.
A 2024 systematic review of resistance exercise in people with cancer found beneficial effects on physical fitness and quality of life overall, while results for fatigue were less consistent.
A 2024 systematic review and meta-analysis specifically examining resistance training during chemotherapy found evidence of improvement in lower-body strength, but did not find clear evidence of improvement in all other outcomes assessed.
This illustrates an important principle: evidence can support exercise without meaning that every person will experience the same outcome.
Research suggests that appropriately prescribed exercise can help some people manage cancer-related fatigue.
However, the evidence does not support a universal exercise prescription for everyone.
Exercise intensity, type, frequency, duration and progression should be considered alongside the individual's clinical circumstances and treatment status.
For people living with or beyond cancer, current evidence suggests that resistance and combined exercise programmes can improve several physical outcomes, although results vary according to population and outcome.
Strength training is therefore used as one component of an individualised rehabilitation programme rather than as a universal treatment for every person.
For example, NICE guidance for low back pain and sciatica recommends providing information and advice to support self-management and considering exercise programmes according to an individual's needs, preferences and capabilities.
Manual therapy may be considered as part of a treatment package that includes exercise, rather than as a standalone intervention.
Treatment is therefore based on assessment, clinical reasoning, shared decision-making and appropriate progression.
Research into scar massage and manual scar techniques suggests possible improvements in outcomes such as pain, itch, scar characteristics and function in some populations, particularly burn-related scarring.
However, research into postsurgical scars is heterogeneous, with considerable variation in treatment techniques, timing, outcome measures and study quality.
For this reason, scar therapy should not be presented as a guaranteed method of removing or permanently changing a scar.
Treatment is individualised according to the scar, stage of healing, symptoms, functional impact and relevant medical or surgical considerations.
Clinical decision-making combines:
The aim is not simply to apply research mechanically, but to use the evidence appropriately for the person sitting in front of the physiotherapist.
Research varies in quality.
Where possible, preference is given to:
Where evidence is limited or inconsistent, this will be stated rather than overstating certainty.
Inclusion in a research database does not mean that a treatment is effective. These are sources for finding and evaluating research.
This article provides general educational information and is not a substitute for an individual clinical assessment or medical advice.
The information is not tailored to your diagnosis, medical history, treatment, medications or individual risk factors.
If you have concerns about your symptoms or health, please speak with an appropriate healthcare professional.