Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18769572›Full record

ArticleCurrent oncology (Toronto, Ont.)2008

Principles to guide integrative oncology and the development of an evidence base.

A M Leis, L C Weeks, M J Verhoef

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.), 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Synergistic inhibition of angiogenesis by artesunate and captopril in vitro and in vivo.Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM · 2013
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

A M LeisDepartment of Community Health and Epidemiology, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, SK. anne.leis@usask.ca
L C Weeks
M J Verhoef

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIntegrative oncology uses both conventional and complementary medicine to meet the needs of individual patients and to focus on the whole person. The core principles of integrative oncology include individualization, holism, dynamism, synergism, and collaboration, but the nature of the evidence to guide the development of integrative oncology has been given little attention.

objectivesTo discuss the need for evidence to support the integration of complementary therapies for integrative oncology care. To emphasize that the evidence base must be valid and respect the underlying principles of individual complementary therapies and integrative oncology practice. To suggest ways to begin developing the evidence base. REVIEW AND DISCUSSION: Although the evidence for safety and efficacy seems paramount for supporting the integration of an individual complementary therapy into mainstream cancer care, the need for evidence to support the overall practice of integrative oncology has to be considered as well. We argue that developing an evidence base for integrative oncology requires a contextual and comprehensive research approach that assesses a range of outcomes over a suitable period of time that the patient and the patient's family, in addition to the health care providers, deem important.

conclusionA whole-systems framework to the development of the evidence base for integrative oncology can guide the development of evidence that respects the complex nature of many complementary and integrative practices and their underlying principles of care delivery.

Indexed as

evidence-based medicineIntegrative oncologyrandomized controlled trialswhole-systems research

Identifiers

PMID18769572
PMCPMC2528554

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.