Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27609097›Full record

ReviewBMC complementary and alternative medicine2016

Perception of risk and communication among conventional and complementary health care providers involving cancer patients' use of complementary therapies: a literature review.

Trine Stub, Sara A Quandt, Thomas A Arcury, Joanne C Sandberg, Agnete E Kristoffersen, Frauke Musial, Anita Salamonsen

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in BMC complementary and alternative medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 51 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
51citing papers in PubMed, 4 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

51 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Goutweed (Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Review
  12. Observational
  13. Article
  14. Oncology researchers' and clinicians' perceptions of complementary, alternative, and integrative medicine: an international, cross-sectional survey.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2024
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Cancer patients' behaviors and attitudes toward natural health products.BMC complementary medicine and therapies · 2023
    Article
  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

7 authors.

Trine StubDepartment of Epidemiology and Prevention, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Division of Public Health Sciences, Winston-Salem, NC, 27157, USA. tstub@wakehealth.edu.
Sara A QuandtDepartment of Epidemiology and Prevention, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Division of Public Health Sciences, Winston-Salem, NC, 27157, USA.
Thomas A ArcuryDepartment of Family and Community Medicine, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC, 27157, USA.
Joanne C SandbergDepartment of Family and Community Medicine, Wake Forest School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC, 27157, USA.
Agnete E KristoffersenDepartment of Community Medicine, The National Research Center in Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NAFKAM), UiT The Arctic University of Norway, Tromsø, Norway.
Frauke MusialDepartment of Community Medicine, The National Research Center in Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NAFKAM), UiT The Arctic University of Norway, Tromsø, Norway.
Anita SalamonsenDepartment of Community Medicine, The National Research Center in Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NAFKAM), UiT The Arctic University of Norway, Tromsø, Norway.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCommunication between different health care providers (conventional and complementary) and cancer patients about their use of complementary therapies affects the health and safety of the patients. The aim of this study was to examine the qualitative research literature on the perception of and communication about the risk of complementary therapies between different health care providers and cancer patients.

methodsSystematic searches in six medical databases covering literature from 2000 to 2015 were performed. The studies were accessed according to the level of evidence and summarized into different risk situations. Qualitative content analysis was used to analyze the text data, and the codes were defined before and during the data analysis.

resultsTwenty-nine papers were included in the primary analysis and five main themes were identified and discussed. The main risk situations identified were 1. Differences in treatment concepts and philosophical values among complementary and conventional health care providers. 2. Adverse effects from complementary products and herbs due to their contamination/toxicity and interactions with conventional cancer treatment. 3. Health care physicians and oncologists find it difficult to recommend many complementary modalities due to the lack of scientific evidence for their effect. 4. Lack of knowledge and information about complementary and conventional cancer treatments among different health care providers.

conclusionThe risk of consuming herbs and products containing high level of toxins is a considerable threat to patient safety (direct risk). At the same time, the lack of scientific evidence of effect for many complementary therapies and differences in treatment philosophy among complementary and conventional health care providers potentially hinder effective communication about these threats with mutual patients (indirect risk). As such, indirect risk may pose an additional risk to patients who want to combine complementary therapies with conventional treatment in cancer care. Health care providers who care for cancer patients should be aware of these risks.

Indexed as

CommunicationComplementary TherapiesPatient SafetyHealth PersonnelHumansNeoplasmsPhysician-Patient RelationsQualitative ResearchRiskCancer careCommunication between health care providersComplementary and Alternative MedicineComplementary therapyOncologyPatient safetyProvider-patient communicationRisk

Identifiers

PMID27609097
PMCPMC5016861

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.