Assessing the Impact of Complementary and Alternative Medicine Trials in Oncology.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Ludmir EB
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6589942 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Jan-Dec
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Assessing the Impact of Complementary and Alternative Medicine Trials in Oncology.
Ludmir Ethan B EB Jethanandani Amit A Mainwaring Walker W Miller Austin B AB Lin Timothy A TA Espinoza Andres F AF Grossberg Aaron J AJ Fuller C David CD
Integrative cancer therapies 20190101
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundComplementary and alternative medicine (CAM) has been widely used by cancer patients and oncologists in the past decades. The present study aimed to examine and compare the characteristics and registration status of published studies in a sample of recently published CAM randomized controlled trial (RCT) reports of oncology in leading journals of 3 categories: general and internal medicine (GIM), clinical oncology (CO), and CAM.MethodsArticles published in the top 5 journals of the 3 categories from 2006 to 2015 were searched in PubMed. Basic characteristics, registration information, impact factor, and citations were identified and extracted from the included RCTs. Data were summarized by frequency, mean, and median and compared using χ2 test and Kruskal-Wallis H test.ResultsA total of 59 RCTs were included; among them, 34 (58%) could be identified with a registration number. GIM journals (15) enjoyed the highest average number of citations per article, followed by CO (12) and CAM (3) journals ( P < .0001). ClinicalTrials.gov was the most popular registry for these RCTs. Of the RCTs registered in ClinicalTrials.gov , 24% (4/17) of the published studies in CO journals put their results in the registry; however, no study in GIM and CAM journals put the result in the registry ( P = .372).ConclusionThe top GIM, CO, and CAM journals rarely published CAM RCTs of oncology from 2006 to 2015, and the CAM articles of oncology were less cited. However, there was a clear improvement in the trial registration rate over the past decades.
| S-EPMC6041924 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe prevalence of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) use and the modalities used by pediatric oncology patients vary widely across studies. In addition, the changes in the use of CAM over the course of treatment are understudied. Thus, this study aimed to explore (1) CAM use by pediatric oncology patients in relation to specific time intervals and (2) communication about CAM use between parents and oncologists.MethodsThis retrospective cross-sectional study was conducted among parents of children diagnosed with cancer at a Swiss pediatric hematology-oncology center by means of an online questionnaire. Questions were related to their child's CAM use over different time intervals, sources of information about CAM use, and communication with the oncologists.ResultsAmong 140 respondents, CAM was used by 54.3% of patients before diagnosis and 69.3% of patients after diagnosis. During each defined time interval, between 50 and 58.8% of the patients used at least one CAM. Homeopathy was the most popular CAM modality used during oncology treatment, during the first year after treatment, and between 1 and 5 years after the end of treatment. Osteopathy was the most popular CAM ≥5 years after the end of oncology treatment. Forty percent of respondents did not discuss CAM with their oncologist.ConclusionsThe high prevalence of CAM use and the different trends of use during the oncology care pathway and afterward underline the need to increase communication about CAM in the pediatric oncology setting, notably regarding benefits and risks of interaction with oncology treatment.
| S-EPMC7977159 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo measure prevalence of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) use in a diverse gynecologic oncology patient population and evaluate how attitudes and beliefs regarding CAM relate to demographic factors.MethodsA validated Attitudes and Beliefs about Complementary and Alternative Medicine (ABCAM) survey was distributed to patients with gynecologic malignancy. Results were evaluated using Pearson's Chi-squared and Fisher's exact tests for categorical variables and Wilcoxon ranks sum and Kruskal-Wallace tests for non-normally distributed variables.ResultsOne-hundred thirty patients completed the ABCAM survey. Self-reported race and ethnicity included Asian or Pacific Islander (n = 54; 42%), Hispanic/Latino (n = 23; 18%), White (n = 21; 16%), Black or African American (n = 20; 15%), American Indian/Alaska Native (n = 8; 6.2%) and Other (n = 4; 3.1%). Twenty-four respondents (18%) reported use of CAM. There was a significant difference in expected benefits to CAM between respondents of different races/ethnicities (p < 0.001). Black and Asian respondents reported greater expected benefit to CAM. Hispanic/Latino, American Indian/Alaskan Native, and White respondents reported fewer expected benefits. A significant association was found between perceived barriers to CAM and race/ethnicity (p 0.043), with Asian, Hispanic/Latino and White respondents perceiving more barriers while Black and American Indian/Alaskan Natives reported perceiving fewer barriers to CAM. Respondents with incomes greater than $100,000 reported fewer barriers to CAM.ConclusionsUse of CAM among gynecologic oncology patients is lower than previously thought. Income, race, and ethnicity inform patient engagement with CAM and can be used to better tailor the provision of evidence-based CAM interventions to benefit a greater number of gynecologic cancer patients.
| S-EPMC10320404 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo examine the quality of reports of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) systematic reviews in the pediatric population. We also examined whether there were differences in the quality of reports of a subset of CAM reviews compared to reviews using conventional interventions.MethodsWe assessed the quality of reports of 47 CAM systematic reviews and 19 reviews evaluating a conventional intervention. The quality of each report was assessed using a validated 10-point scale.ResultsAuthors were particularly good at reporting: eligibility criteria for including primary studies, combining the primary studies for quantitative analysis appropriately, and basing their conclusions on the data included in the review. Reviewers were weak in reporting: how they avoided bias in the selection of primary studies, and how they evaluated the validity of the primary studies. Overall the reports achieved 43% (median = 3) of their maximum possible total score. The overall quality of reporting was similar for CAM reviews and conventional therapy ones.ConclusionsEvidence based health care continues to make important contributions to the well being of children. To ensure the pediatric community can maximize the potential use of these interventions, it is important to ensure that systematic reviews are conducted and reported at the highest possible quality. Such reviews will be of benefit to a broad spectrum of interested stakeholders.
| S-EPMC99047 | biostudies-literature
Project description:This project aims to assess the utility of bibliographic databases beyond the three major ones (MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane CENTRAL) for finding controlled trials of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM). Fifteen databases were searched to identify controlled clinical trials (CCTs) of CAM not also indexed in MEDLINE. Searches were conducted in May 2006 using the revised Cochrane highly sensitive search strategy (HSSS) and the PubMed CAM Subset. Yield of CAM trials per 100 records was determined, and databases were compared over a standardized period (2005). The Acudoc2 RCT, Acubriefs, Index to Chiropractic Literature (ICL) and Hom-Inform databases had the highest concentrations of non-MEDLINE records, with more than 100 non-MEDLINE records per 500. Other productive databases had ratios between 500 and 1500 records to 100 non-MEDLINE records-these were AMED, MANTIS, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Global Health and Alt HealthWatch. Five databases were found to be unproductive: AGRICOLA, CAIRSS, Datadiwan, Herb Research Foundation and IBIDS. Acudoc2 RCT yielded 100 CAM trials in the most recent 100 records screened. Acubriefs, AMED, Hom-Inform, MANTIS, PsycINFO and CINAHL had more than 25 CAM trials per 100 records screened. Global Health, ICL and Alt HealthWatch were below 25 in yield. There were 255 non-MEDLINE trials from eight databases in 2005, with only 10% indexed in more than one database. Yield varied greatly between databases; the most productive databases from both sampling methods were Acubriefs, Acudoc2 RCT, AMED and CINAHL. Low overlap between databases indicates comprehensive CAM literature searches will require multiple databases.
| S-EPMC3137728 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC3814074 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveComplementary and alternative medicine (CAM) is commonly used by children, but estimates of that use vary widely partly due to the range of questionnaires used to assess CAM use. However, no studies have attempted to appraise measurement properties of these questionnaires. The aim of this systematic review was to critically appraise and summarize measurement properties of questionnaires of CAM use in pediatrics.Study designA search strategy was implemented in major electronic databases in March 2011 and conference websites, scientific journals and experts were consulted. Studies were included if they mentioned a questionnaire assessing the prevalence of CAM use in pediatrics. Members of the team independently rated the methodological quality of the studies (using the COSMIN checklist) and measurement properties of the questionnaires (using the Terwee and Cohen criteria).ResultsA total of 96 CAM questionnaires were found in 104 publications. The COSMIN checklist showed that no studies reported adequate methodological quality. The Terwee criteria showed that all included CAM questionnaires had indeterminate measurement properties. According to the Cohen score, none were considered to be a well-established assessment, two approached the level of a well-established assessment, seven were promising assessments and the remainder (n?=?87) did not reach the score's minimum standards.ConclusionNone of the identified CAM questionnaires have been thoroughly validated. This systematic review highlights the need for proper validation of CAM questionnaires in pediatrics, which may in turn lead to improved research and knowledge translation about CAM in clinical practice.
| S-EPMC3387262 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Patients with osteoarthritis experience high levels of pain, psychological distress and have limited therapeutic options. Emerging evidence from clinical trials suggests that both acupuncture and Tai Chi mind-body therapies are safe and effective treatments for osteoarthritis. Acupuncture has effects over and above those of 'sham acupuncture' and the most robust evidence to date demonstrates that acupuncture does have short-term benefits and is a reasonable referral option for patients with symptomatic osteoarthritis. Tai Chi is a mind-body exercise that enhances cardiovascular fitness, muscular strength, balance, and physical function. It also appears to be associated with reduced stress and anxiety and depression, as well as improved quality of life. Thus, Tai Chi may be safely recommended to patients with osteoarthritis as a complementary and alternative medical approach to affect patient well-being. Integrative approaches combine the best of conventional medicine and complementary and alternative medicine to ultimately improve patient care. These modalities may lead to the development of better disease modifying strategies that could improve symptoms and decrease the progression of osteoarthritis. This overview synthesizes the current body of knowledge about Chinese mind-body medicine to better inform clinical decision-making for our rheumatic patients.
| S-EPMC5565213 | biostudies-other
Project description:PURPOSE:Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) is used by about half of all patients with cancer. Guidelines are an important tool to introduce evidence-based medicine into routine cancer care. The aim of our study was to assess methodology of the statements and recommendations concerning CAM. METHODS:A systematic assessment of all S3 guidelines published until November 2018 was done. Methodology of all statements and recommendations concerning CAM which were declared as evidence-based was evaluated with respect to international standards. According to the AMSTAR-2 instrument search strategy including filters, searched databases, restrictions to the research question and description of the included studies were examined. In case of adaptations from other guidelines, all underlying guidelines were examined as well. RESULTS:After examining 212 guidelines, 82 evidence-based statements and recommendations regarding CAM could be identified. Four were derived by adaptation, 78 by a de-novo search. Only 11 of 78 (14%) fulfilled all assessment criteria. In 18 (19%) cases no information on search strategy was attainable in any document affiliated to the guideline, in 35 (45%) cases information on search strategy was superficial and in 54 (78%) cases the referred evidence was not presented in adequate detail. CONCLUSIONS:Concerning CAM statements and recommendations within S3 guidelines quality of evidence processing has several shortcomings. Guideline adaptions often lack transparency and traceability.
| S-EPMC7382657 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThere is growing interest in the use of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) throughout the world, however previous research done in Japan has focused primarily on CAM use in major cities. The purpose of this study was to develop and distribute a Japanese version of the International Complementary and Alternative Medicine Questionnaire (I-CAM-Q) to assess the use of CAM among people who visit rural Japanese family medicine clinics.MethodsUsing a Japanese version of the International Complementary and Alternative Medicine Questionnaire (I-CAM-Q), a cross-sectional survey was conducted in three rural family medicine clinics. All patients and those accompanying patients who met inclusion criteria were eligible to participate. Data were entered into SPSS Statistics and analyzed for use by age, gender, and location.ResultsOf the 519 respondents who participated in the project, 415 participants reported CAM use in the past 12 months (80.0%). When prayer is excluded, the prevalence of CAM use drops to 77.3% in the past year, or 403 respondents. The most common forms of CAM used by respondents were pain relief pads (n = 170, 32.8%), herbal medicines/supplements (n = 167, 32.2%), and massage by self or family (n = 166, 32.0%). Female respondents, individuals with higher levels of education, and those with poorer overall health status were more likely to use CAM than respondents without these characteristics. Only 22.8% of CAM therapies used were reported to physicians by survey participants.ConclusionsThese data indicate that CAM use in rural Japan is common. The results are consistent with previous studies that show that Japanese individuals are more interested in forms of CAM such as pain relief pads and massage, than in mind-body forms of CAM like relaxation and meditation. Due to the high utilization of certain CAM practices, and given that most CAM users do not disclose their CAM use to their doctors, we conclude that physicians in rural Japan would benefit by asking about CAM use during patient interviews, and by familiarizing themselves with the potential benefits and risks of commonly used CAM modalities.
| S-EPMC4192731 | biostudies-literature