Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25471177›Full record

ArticleSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2015

Complementary and alternative medicine for cancer patients: results of the EPAAC survey on integrative oncology centres in Europe.

Elio Rossi, Alessandra Vita, Sonia Baccetti, Mariella Di Stefano, Fabio Voller, Alberto Zanobini

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
19.3field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

40 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 103 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Dynamized ultra-low dilution ofCell adhesion & migration · 2023
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. 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
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. 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 3 institutions in 3 countries.

Elio RossiDepartment of Research, Innovation and Human Resources, Regional Health Ministry of Region of Tuscany (Italy), Tuscan Network for Integrative Medicine, via T. Alderotti 26 N - 50100, Florence, Italy, retemedicinaintegrata@regione.toscana.it.
Alessandra Vita
Sonia Baccetti
Mariella Di Stefano
Fabio Voller
Alberto Zanobini
Tescan (Czechia) · CZAgenzia Regionale di Sanità della Toscana · ITMinistero della Salute · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe Region of Tuscany Health Department was included as an associated member in WP7 "Healthcare" of the European Partnership for Action Against Cancer (EPAAC), initiated by the EU Commission in 2009.

aimsThe principal aim was to map centres across Europe prioritizing those that provide public health services and operating within the national health system in integrative oncology (IO).

methodsA cross-sectional descriptive survey design was used to collect data. A questionnaire was elaborated concerning integrative oncology therapies to be administered to all the national health system oncology centres or hospitals in each European country. These institutes were identified by convenience sampling, searching on oncology websites and forums. The official websites of these structures were analysed to obtain more information about their activities and contacts.

resultsInformation was received from 123 (52.1 %) out of the 236 centres contacted until 31 December 2013. Forty-seven out of 99 responding centres meeting inclusion criteria (47.5 %) provided integrative oncology treatments, 24 from Italy and 23 from other European countries. The number of patients seen per year was on average 301.2 ± 337. Among the centres providing these kinds of therapies, 33 (70.2 %) use fixed protocols and 35 (74.5 %) use systems for the evaluation of results. Thirty-two centres (68.1 %) had research in progress or carried out until the deadline of the survey. The complementary and alternative medicines (CAMs) more frequently provided to cancer patients were acupuncture 26 (55.3 %), homeopathy 19 (40.4 %), herbal medicine 18 (38.3 %) and traditional Chinese medicine 17 (36.2 %); anthroposophic medicine 10 (21.3 %); homotoxicology 6 (12.8 %); and other therapies 30 (63.8 %). Treatments are mainly directed to reduce adverse reactions to chemo-radiotherapy (23.9 %), in particular nausea and vomiting (13.4 %) and leucopenia (5 %). The CAMs were also used to reduce pain and fatigue (10.9 %), to reduce side effects of iatrogenic menopause (8.8 %) and to improve anxiety and depression (5.9 %), gastrointestinal disorders (5 %), sleep disturbances and neuropathy (3.8 %).

conclusionsMapping of the centres across Europe is an essential step in the process of creating a European network of centres, experts and professionals constantly engaged in the field of integrative oncology, in order to increase, share and disseminate the knowledge in this field and provide evidence-based practice.

Indexed as

Acupuncture TherapyAnxietyComplementary TherapiesCross-Sectional StudiesDelivery of Health CareEthnicityEuropeFemaleHumansMaleMedicine, Chinese TraditionalNeoplasmsPainPain ManagementPhytotherapySurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID25471177
OpenAlexW2044367878

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.