Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26491269›Full record

ArticlePatient preference and adherence2015

Use of complementary and alternative medicine before and after organ removal due to urologic cancer.

Jens Mani, Eva Juengel, Ilhan Arslan, Georg Bartsch, Natalie Filmann, Hanns Ackermann, Karen Nelson, Axel Haferkamp, Tobias Engl, Roman A Blaheta

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Patient preference and adherence, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Crowdfunding in urology: Canadian perspective.Canadian Urological Association journal = Journal de l'Association des urologues du Canada · 2021
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Complementary and alternative medicine in radiation oncology : Survey of patients' attitudes.Strahlentherapie und Onkologie : Organ der Deutschen Rontgengesellschaft ... [et al] · 2017
    Article
  9. 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

10 authors.

Jens ManiDepartment of Urology, Johann Wolfgang Goethe-University, Frankfurt am Main, Germany.
Eva JuengelDepartment of Urology, Johann Wolfgang Goethe-University, Frankfurt am Main, Germany.
Ilhan ArslanDepartment of Urology, Johann Wolfgang Goethe-University, Frankfurt am Main, Germany.
Georg BartschDepartment of Urology, Johann Wolfgang Goethe-University, Frankfurt am Main, Germany.
Natalie FilmannInstitute of Biostatistics and Mathematical Modeling, Johann Wolfgang Goethe-University, Frankfurt am Main, Germany.
Hanns AckermannInstitute of Biostatistics and Mathematical Modeling, Johann Wolfgang Goethe-University, Frankfurt am Main, Germany.
Karen NelsonDepartment of Vascular and Endovascular Surgery, Johann Wolfgang Goethe-University, Frankfurt am Main, Germany.
Axel HaferkampDepartment of Urology, Johann Wolfgang Goethe-University, Frankfurt am Main, Germany.
Tobias EnglDepartment of Urology, Johann Wolfgang Goethe-University, Frankfurt am Main, Germany.
Roman A BlahetaDepartment of Urology, Johann Wolfgang Goethe-University, Frankfurt am Main, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveMany patients use complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) as primary treatment or symptom relief for a variety of illnesses. This study was designed to investigate the influence of surgical removal of a tumor-bearing urogenital organ on CAM use.

methodsFrom 2007 to 2011, 350 patients underwent major urological surgery for kidney, prostate, or bladder cancer at the Goethe-University Hospital, Frankfurt, Germany. Data from 172 patients (49%), who returned a questionnaire, were retrospectively evaluated using the hospital information system along with the questionnaire to objectify CAM use 2 years before and after surgery.

resultsFrom the 172 patients returning questionnaires, 56 (33%) used CAM before and/or after surgery and 116 (67%) never used CAM. Of the 56 CAM users, 30 (54%) used CAM presurgery and 53 (95%) used CAM postsurgery, indicating a significant change of mind about CAM use. Patients of German nationality used CAM significantly more than patients of other nationalities. Higher educational status (high-school diploma or higher) was a significant factor in favor of CAM use. The most common type of CAM used before/after surgery was an alternative medical system (63/49%), a manipulative and body-based method (50/19%), and a biological-based therapy (37/32%). Information about CAM, either provided by medical professionals or by other sources, was the main reason determining whether patients used CAM or not.

conclusionThe number of patients using CAM almost doubled after surgical removal of a cancer-bearing organ. Better awareness and understanding of CAM use by medical professionals could improve patient counseling.

Indexed as

complementary and alternative medicinesurgeryurologic cancer

Identifiers

PMID26491269
PMCPMC4599187

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.