SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2006
Laetrile treatment for cancer.
Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Laetrile for cancer: a systematic review of the clinical evidence.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2007Pooled it
- Chinese Medicine Amygdalin and β-Glucosidase Combined with Antibody Enzymatic Prodrug System As A Feasible Antitumor Therapy.Chinese journal of integrative medicine · 2018Article
- Toxic phytochemicals and their potential risks for human cancer.Cancer prevention research (Philadelphia, Pa.) · 2015Review
- Problems and promises of innovation: why healthcare needs to rethink its love/hate relationship with the new.BMJ quality & safety · 2011Article
- If there are no randomised controlled trials, do we always need more research?The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2011Article
- Why the NIH Trial to Assess Chelation Therapy (TACT) should be abandoned.Medscape journal of medicine · 2008Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
- Updated by
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLaetrile is an unconventional therapy which has been used illegally for decades by cancer patients who together with some alternative therapists claim its effectiveness as an anti-cancer treatment. It has been often referred to as amygdalin, although the two are not the same.
objectivesThe aim of this review was to assess the alleged anti-cancer effect and the possible harms of Laetrile as a sole or adjunctive therapy in cancer treatment. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); MEDLINE (from 1951); EMBASE (from 1980); Allied and Complementary Medicine (AMED), Scirus, CancerLit, CINAHL (all from 1982); CAMbase (from 1998); the MetaRegister; the National Research Register and our own files. No language restrictions were imposed. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and non randomized controlled clinical trials (non-RCTs). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two reviewers independently assessed trials for inclusion in the review, assessed study quality and extracted data. MAIN
resultsNo RCTs or non-RCTs were found, so no abstraction of outcome data could be performed in this systematic review AUTHORS'
conclusionsThe claim that Laetrile has beneficial effects for cancer patients is not supported by data from controlled clinical trials. This systematic review has clearly identified the need for randomised or controlled clinical trials assessing the effectiveness of Laetrile or amygdalin for cancer treatment.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.