Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24706260›Full record

ArticleJournal of cancer research and clinical oncology2014

Attitudes of members of the German Society for Palliative Medicine toward complementary and alternative medicine for cancer patients.

A C Conrad, K Muenstedt, O Micke, F J Prott, R Muecke, J Huebner

Open access · greenAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
14.9field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 41 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. A pre-post evaluation of oncology healthcare providers' knowledge, attitudes, and practices following the implementation of a complementary medicine practice guideline.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2021
    Article
  10. Perceptions of homeopathy in supportive cancer care among oncologists and general practitioners in France.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2021
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Education in End-of-Life Care: What Do Experienced Professionals Find Important?Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2016
    Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

A C ConradDr. Senckenbergisch Chronomedical Institute, J.W. Goethe University, Theodor-Stern-Kai 7, 60590, Frankfurt, Germany.
K Muenstedt
O Micke
F J Prott
R Muecke
J Huebner
Goethe University Frankfurt · DEFrancis Hospital · DERuhr University Bochum · DEUniversitätsklinikum Gießen und Marburg · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundA high proportion of cancer patients use complementary and alternative medicine (CAM). In oncology, risks of CAM are side effects and interactions.

objectiveOur aim was to conduct a survey on professionals in palliative care regarding attitudes toward CAM. DESIGN AND SUBJECTS: An internet-based survey with a standardized questionnaire was sent to all members of the German Society for Palliative Care. MEASUREMENTS: The questionnaire collected data on attitude toward CAM and experiences.

resultsSix hundred and ninety questionnaires (19 %) were returned (49 % physicians, 35 % nurses, 3 % psychologists). Acceptance of CAM is high (92 % for complementary and 54 % for alternative medicine). Most participants had already been asked on CAM by patients (95 %) and relatives (89 %). Forty-four percent already had used complementary methods and 5 % alternative methods. Only 21 % think themselves adequately informed. Seventy-four percent would use complementary methods in a patient with advanced tumor, and 62 % would use alternative therapy in patients if there was no other therapy. Even from those who are skeptical 45 % would treat a patient with alternative methods.

conclusionsIn order to inform patients on CAM and to further patients' autonomy, evidence on benefits and harms of CAM must be provided. As awareness of risks from CAM is low and critical appraisal especially of alternative medicine missing, but interest on information on CAM is high, experts should provide evidence-based recommendations for CAM in palliative care to members of different professions. This could be done by a curriculum focusing on the most often used CAM methods.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelPalliative CareAdultAgedAged, 80 and overComplementary TherapiesFemaleGermanyHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasmsNursesPerceptionPhysicians

Identifiers

PMID24706260
PMCPMC11824084
OpenAlexW2002203156

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.