ReviewCurrent treatment options in oncology2014
Appropriate use of complementary and alternative medicine approaches in gynecologic cancers.
Review in Current treatment options in oncology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Acceptance and use of complementary and alternative medicine among medical specialists: a 15-year systematic review and data synthesis.Systematic reviews · 2022Pooled it
- Review
- Complementary, Traditional and Spiritual Practices Used by Cancer Patients in Turkey When Coping with Pain: An Exploratory Case Study.Journal of religion and health · 2021Article
- Article
- An Integrated Study on the Antitumor Effect and Mechanism of Triphala Against Gynecological Cancers Based on Network Pharmacological Prediction and In Vitro Experimental Validation.Integrative cancer therapies · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
opinion statementGynecologic cancer patients frequently desire alternative and/or complementary interventions or medicines to aid in relief of both cancer-related and treatment-related side effects. Furthermore, women also seek treatment to aid in superior outcomes and cure rates. Unfortunately, evidence suggests that the use of complementary and/or alternative medicine (CAM) is underreported or not discussed with physicians providing cancer care. In gynecologic cancer literature, there is a lack of scientific evidence either supporting or negating CAM. Because of the lack of information available, health care providers do not have good information regarding safety, efficacy, and dose of CAM. This leads to miscommunication or absence of communication between providers and patients. Because patients do use CAM to improve quality of life (QOL) during and after treatment, it would be educational for providers to know the specific QOL deficits among patients that require attention. Thus, with the ultimate goal of improving QOL for gynecologic cancer patients, providers should be pushed to investigate CAM and determine an honest support or rejection of these therapies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
24398574What 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.