Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29513724›Full record

ArticlePloS one2018

Factors associated with the use of complementary and alternative medicines for prostate cancer by long-term survivors.

Sam Egger, Suzanne Hughes, David P Smith, Suzanne Chambers, Clare Kahn, Annette Moxey, Dianne L O'Connell

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 19% of its field
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Sam EggerCancer Research Division, Cancer Council New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-1808-6909
Suzanne HughesCancer Research Division, Cancer Council New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
David P SmithCancer Research Division, Cancer Council New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Suzanne ChambersMenzies Health Institute, Queensland, Griffith University, Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia.
Clare KahnCancer Research Division, Cancer Council New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Annette MoxeySchool of Medicine and Public Health, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, New South Wales, Australia.
Dianne L O'ConnellCancer Research Division, Cancer Council New South Wales, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Cancer Council NSW · AUGriffith University · AUThe University of Sydney · AUUniversity of Newcastle Australia · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo assess whether the use of complementary and alternative medicines therapies (CAMs) for prostate cancer and/or its treatment side effects by long-term survivors is associated with selected socio-demographic, clinical, health-related quality-of-life (HRQOL) and/or psychological factors. DESIGN, SETTING AND

participantsThe Prostate Cancer Care and Outcomes Study (PCOS) is a population-based cohort study of men with prostate cancer who were aged less than 70 years at diagnosis in New South Wales, Australia. Included in these analyses were men who returned a 10-year follow-up questionnaire, which included questions about CAM use.

methodsValidated instruments assessed patient's HRQOL and psychological well-being. Poisson regression with robust variance estimation was used to estimate the adjusted relative risks of current CAM use for prostate cancer according to socio-demographic, clinical, HRQOL and psychological factors.

results996 of 1634 (61%) living PCOS participants completed the 10-year questionnaire. Of these 996 men, 168 (17%) were using CAMs for prostate cancer and 525 (53%) were using CAMs for any reason (including prostate cancer). Those using CAM for prostate cancer were more likely to be regular or occasional support group participants (vs. no participation RR = 2.02; 95%CI 1.41-2.88), born in another country (vs. Australian born RR = 1.59; 95%CI 1.17-2.16), have received androgen deprivation treatment (ADT) since diagnosis (RR = 1.60; 95%CI 1.12-2.28) or in the past two years (RR = 2.34; 95%CI 1.56-3.52). CAM use was associated with greater fear of recurrence (RR = 1.29; 95%CI 1.12-1.48), cancer-specific distress (RR = 1.15; 95%CI 1.01-1.30), cancer-specific hyperarousal (RR = 1.17; 95%CI 1.04-1.31), cancer locus of control (RR = 1.16; 95%CI 1.01-1.34) and less satisfaction with medical treatments (RR = 0.86; 95%CI 0.76-0.97), but not with intrusive thinking, cognitive avoidance, depression, anxiety or any HRQOL domains.

conclusionsIn this study, about one in six long term prostate cancer survivors used CAMs for their prostate cancer with use centred around ADT, country of birth, distress, cancer control, fear of recurrence and active help seeking.

Indexed as

Complementary TherapiesAgedAged, 80 and overAustraliaCancer SurvivorsFollow-Up StudiesHumansLongitudinal StudiesMaleMiddle AgedProstatic NeoplasmsQuality of LifeRegression AnalysisSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID29513724
PMCPMC5841769
OpenAlexW2790003468

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.