ReviewGeburtshilfe und Frauenheilkunde2016
A Review of Integrative Medicine in Gynaecological Oncology.
Review in Geburtshilfe und Frauenheilkunde, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Biologically Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine Use in Breast Cancer Patients and Possible Drug-Drug Interactions.Breast care (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Additional treatment with mistletoe extracts for patients with breast cancer compared to conventional cancer therapy alone - efficacy and safety, costs and cost-effectiveness, patients and social aspects, and ethical assessment.German medical science : GMS e-journal · 2022Review
- Article
- Demand for integrative medicine among women with breast and gynecological cancer: a multicenter cross-sectional study in Southern and Northern Germany.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2021Article
- Gynecologists' attitudes toward and use of complementary and integrative medicine approaches: results of a national survey in Germany.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2021Article
- Evaluating the Demand for Integrative Medicine Practices in Breast and Gynecological Cancer Patients.Breast care (Basel, Switzerland) · 2019Article
- Gynecologic oncologists' attitudes and practices relating to integrative medicine: results of a nationwide AGO survey.Archives of gynecology and obstetrics · 2017Article
- Active Participation, Mind-Body Stabilization, and Coping Strategies with Integrative Medicine in Breast Cancer Patients.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
20 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In recent years complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) has increasingly been the focus of international research. Numerous subsidised trials (7903) and systematic reviews (651) have been published, and the evidence is starting to be integrated into treatment guidelines. However, due to insufficient evidence and/or insufficient good quality evidence, this has mostly not translated to practice recommendations in reviews by the Cochrane collaboration gynaecology group. There is nevertheless a not insignificant number of CAM providers and users. The percentage of oncology patients who use CAM varies between 5 and 90 %. Doctors have been identified as the main providers of CAM. Half of gynaecologists offer CAM because of personal conviction or on suggestion from colleagues. This must be viewed in a critical light, since CAM is mostly practiced without appropriate training, often without sufficient evidence for a given method - and where evidence exists, practice guidelines are lacking - and lack of safety or efficacy testing. The combination of patient demand and lucrativeness for doctors/alternative medicine practitioners, both based on supposed effectiveness CAM, often leads to its indiscriminate use with uncertain outcomes and significant cost for patients. On the other hand there is published, positive level I evidence for a number of CAM treatment forms. The aim of this article is therefore to review the available evidence for CAM in gynaecological oncology practice. The continued need for research is highlighted, as is the need to integrate practices supported by good evidence into conventional gynaecological oncology.
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.