ArticleAdvances in radiation oncology
International Survey on the Use of Complementary and Alternative Medicines for Common Toxicities of Radiation Therapy.
Article in Advances in radiation oncology. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeComplementary and alternative medicines (CAMs) are widely used by patients with cancer. However, little is known about the extent to which these potential remedies are used internationally to treat the most common toxicities of radiation therapy. We report on the results of an international survey that assessed the use of CAMs. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Surveys were distributed to 1174 practicing radiation oncologists. Questions evaluated the perceptions of CAMs and specific practice patterns for the use of CAM remedies in the treatment of common radiation-induced toxicities (eg, skin, fatigue, nausea, diarrhea, and mucositis/xerostomia). The responses were compared between the groups using the χ
resultsA total of 114 radiation oncologists from 29 different countries completed the survey, with a balanced distribution between North American (n = 56) and non-North American (n = 58) providers. Among the responding clinicians, 63% recommended CAMs in their practice. The proportion of clinicians who recommend CAMs for radiation toxicities did not significantly vary when stratified by provider's number of years in practice (
conclusionsNearly two-thirds of the surveyed radiation oncologists recommend CAMs for radiation-related toxicities; however, they estimated that less than one third of patients use CAMs for this purpose. This suggests a need for further investigation and perhaps greater patient education on the roles of CAMs in treating radiation toxicities.
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.