ArticleAfrican journal of traditional, complementary, and alternative medicines : AJTCAM2014
Use of Chinese medicine among colorectal cancer patients: a nationwide population-based study.
Article in African journal of traditional, complementary, and alternative medicines : AJTCAM, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) and Herbal Hepatotoxicity: RUCAM and the Role of Novel Diagnostic Biomarkers Such as MicroRNAs.Medicines (Basel, Switzerland) · 2016Review
- Complementary and Integrative Health Practices Among Hispanics Diagnosed with Colorectal Cancer: Utilization and Communication with Physicians.Journal of alternative and complementary medicine (New York, N.Y.) · 2016Article
- Network Meta-Analysis of Chinese Herbal Injections Plus the FOLFOX Regimen for the Treatment of Colorectal Cancer in China.Integrative cancer therapiesArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTraditional Chinese medicine (CM) appears to be used worldwide, especially by cancer patients. The aim of the present study was to explore CM uses and CM non-users by patients with colorectal cancer (CRC). MATERIALS AND
methodsA retrospective study was conducted using registration and claims data sets for 2007 from the National Health Insurance Research Database. Patients with colorectal cancer were identified from the Registry for Catastrophic illness Patients. Binary logistic regression was used to estimate odds ratios as the measure of association with the use of CM.
resultsA total of 61,211 CRC patients diagnosed in 2007 were analysis. Most CM users preferred to visit private clinics (46.9%) with 306,599 visits. In contrast, the majority of CM non-users preferred to visit private hospitals (42.2%) with 538,769 visits. Among all 176,707 cancer-specific CM visit, there were 66.6% visits to CM outpatient department (OPD) of private hospitals, while in 477,612 non-cancer-specific CM visits, 62.0% was for private clinics. The proportion of expenses for diagnostic fees for CM user in CM visits was much less than that for WM visits and CM non-users (US$4.6 vs. 29.3 vs. 33.5). The average cost for CM user in CM was less than that for WM visits and CM non-users (US$6.3 vs. 25.9 vs. 30.3). Female patients, younger age, and patients not living in the northern region, with higher EC or more comorbidities were more likely to receive CM treatment.
conclusionThe prevalence and costs of insurance-covered CM among CRC patients were low. Further longer longitudinal study is needed to follow up this trend.
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.