ArticleIntegrative cancer therapies2018
Characteristic Analysis of Complementary and Alternative Medicine in Randomized Controlled Trials of Oncology: A Comparison of Published Studies.
Article in Integrative cancer therapies, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Disagreements in risk of bias assessment for randomized controlled trials in hypertension-related Cochrane reviews.Trials · 2024Article
- Response to "Characteristic Analysis of Complementary and Alternative Medicine in Randomized Controlled Trials of Oncology: A Comparison of Published Studies".Integrative cancer therapiesArticle
- Assessing the Impact of Complementary and Alternative Medicine Trials in Oncology.Integrative cancer therapiesArticle
- Reporting Quality of Randomized Controlled Trials Published inIntegrative cancer therapiesArticle
- The Challenge and Management of Clinical Trials in Integrative Cancer during the COVID-19 Pandemic Worldwide.Integrative cancer therapiesArticle
- Basic Characteristics, Status, and Challenges of Integrative Oncology in China.Integrative cancer therapiesArticle
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundComplementary and alternative medicine (CAM) has been widely used by cancer patients and oncologists in the past decades. The present study aimed to examine and compare the characteristics and registration status of published studies in a sample of recently published CAM randomized controlled trial (RCT) reports of oncology in leading journals of 3 categories: general and internal medicine (GIM), clinical oncology (CO), and CAM.
methodsArticles published in the top 5 journals of the 3 categories from 2006 to 2015 were searched in PubMed. Basic characteristics, registration information, impact factor, and citations were identified and extracted from the included RCTs. Data were summarized by frequency, mean, and median and compared using χ
resultsA total of 59 RCTs were included; among them, 34 (58%) could be identified with a registration number. GIM journals (15) enjoyed the highest average number of citations per article, followed by CO (12) and CAM (3) journals ( P < .0001). ClinicalTrials.gov was the most popular registry for these RCTs. Of the RCTs registered in ClinicalTrials.gov , 24% (4/17) of the published studies in CO journals put their results in the registry; however, no study in GIM and CAM journals put the result in the registry ( P = .372).
conclusionThe top GIM, CO, and CAM journals rarely published CAM RCTs of oncology from 2006 to 2015, and the CAM articles of oncology were less cited. However, there was a clear improvement in the trial registration rate over the past decades.
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.