Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29356888›Full record

ArticleJournal of cancer research and clinical oncology2018

The use of complementary and alternative medicine by patients in routine care and the risk of interactions.

Rachel Firkins, Hannah Eisfeld, Christina Keinki, Jens Buentzel, Andreas Hochhaus, Thorsten Schmidt, Jutta Huebner

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed
–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

30 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Cancer patients' behaviors and attitudes toward natural health products.BMC complementary medicine and therapies · 2023
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Observational
  11. [Complementary and Alternative Medicine Offers of Teaching Practices for General Medicine].Gesundheitswesen (Bundesverband der Arzte des Offentlichen Gesundheitsdienstes (Germany)) · 2023
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Complementary Medicine in the Treatment of Cancer Patients.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2021
    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.

Rachel FirkinsKlinik für Innere Medizin II, Hämatologie und Internistische Onkologie, Universitätsklinikum Jena, Am Klinikum 1, 07747, Jena, Germany.
Hannah EisfeldKlinik für Innere Medizin II, Hämatologie und Internistische Onkologie, Universitätsklinikum Jena, Am Klinikum 1, 07747, Jena, Germany.
Christina KeinkiKlinik für Innere Medizin II, Hämatologie und Internistische Onkologie, Universitätsklinikum Jena, Am Klinikum 1, 07747, Jena, Germany.
Jens BuentzelSüdharz Klinikum Nordhausen, Klinik für HNO-Erkrankungen, Kopf-Hals-Chirurgie, Interdisziplinäre Palliativstation, Dr.-Robert-Koch-Straße 39, 99734, Nordhausen, Germany.
Andreas HochhausKlinik für Innere Medizin II, Hämatologie und Internistische Onkologie, Universitätsklinikum Jena, Am Klinikum 1, 07747, Jena, Germany.
Thorsten SchmidtKrebszentrum Nord, CCC, Universitätsklinikum Schleswig-Holstein, Campus Kiel, Arnold-Heller-Straße 3, Haus 14, 24105, Kiel, Germany.
Jutta HuebnerKlinik für Innere Medizin II, Hämatologie und Internistische Onkologie, Universitätsklinikum Jena, Am Klinikum 1, 07747, Jena, Germany. jutta.huebner@med.uni-jena.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4931-568X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPatients suffering from cancer often make use of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM). Only few data exist on the prevalence and clinical significance of interactions of a biological CAM method and conventional drugs.

methodsFrom February 2014 to March 2016, consecutive patients from five oncological practices in Germany were asked to fulfill a standardized questionnaire regarding use of CAM. Data on diagnosis, date of first diagnosis, ECOG and the past and current treatment were derived from the patients' files. Interactions were evaluated by systematically using a database on potential interactions.

resultsFrom 1000 patients asked to participate, we received a total of 720 questionnaires of which 711 were completed and eligible for evaluation. 29% of the patients reported any CAM usage. Women showed a significantly higher use of CAM with 35.6 versus 23.6% of men. For 54.9% of CAM users (15.9% of all patients), we found a combination of conventional drugs and biological based CAM methods with a risk for interactions. Vitamins A, C and E were the most frequently used CAM substances in these cases (39.3%), followed by herbs with 17.5%.

conclusionThere was a risk of interactions between a biological CAM method and conventional drugs in 54.9% of the patients using CAM. To raise knowledge on interactions a better training for doctors with respect to CAM is strongly needed. Furthermore, patients' awareness should also be raised and communication between physician and patient on the topic improved.

Indexed as

Herb-Drug InteractionsAdultAgedAged, 80 and overComplementary TherapiesFemaleGermanyHumansMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasmsPhysician-Patient RelationsPrevalencePrimary Health CareRisk AssessmentSurveys and QuestionnairesCancer drugsComplementary and alternative medicineInteractionsPatient–physician communication

Identifiers

PMID29356888
PMCPMC11813481

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.