Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30629899›Full record

ArticleJournal of oncology practice2019

Let's Talk About Those Herbs You Are Taking: Ethical Considerations for Communication With Patients With Cancer About Complementary and Alternative Medicine.

Laura Tenner, Fay J Hlubocky, Charles D Blanke, Thomas W LeBlanc, Jonathan M Marron, Molly M McGinnis, Rebecca A Spence, Lynne P Taylor

Erratum issuedAbstract readCase Reports
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of oncology practice, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Guideline
  2. Trial
  3. Exploring primary care physician feedback following an integrative oncology consultation.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2023
    Trial
  4. Unregulated use ofThe Libyan journal of medicine · 2026
    Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Laura Tenner1 UT Health Cancer Center San Antonio, TX.
Fay J Hlubocky2 University of Chicago, Chicago, IL.
Charles D Blanke3 SWOG Cancer Research Network, Portland, OR.
Thomas W LeBlanc4 Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC.
Jonathan M Marron5 Dana Farber/Boston Children's Cancer and Blood Disorders Center, Boston, MA.
Molly M McGinnis6 American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA.
Rebecca A Spence6 American Society of Clinical Oncology, Alexandria, VA.
Lynne P Taylor7 University of Washington Medical Center, Seattle, WA.

Funding

SWOG NCORP Research BaseUG1CA189974 · NCI · THE HOPE FOUNDATION · PI CHARLES D. BLANKE, DAWN HERSHMAN · 2014 to 2026
$80.6M
NCI NIH HHS UG1 CA189974
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Oncologists face ethical challenges when patients use potentially harmful complementary and alternative medicine in addition to or instead of conventional treatments for their cancer. For example, a patient may forego effective cancer treatment in favor of alternative therapies and suffer significant harm as a result. Similarly, false beliefs about the efficacy of complementary therapies may complicate the process of shared decision making about cancer treatment. In this vignette, we discuss clinicians' obligations and provide recommendations for ethically sound communication practices in this clinical context.

Indexed as

Complementary TherapiesHerbal MedicineAgedCommunicationDecision MakingHumansMaleNeoplasmsOncologistsPhysician-Patient Relations

Identifiers

PMID30629899
PMCPMC6804900

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.