ArticleJournal of cancer research and clinical oncology2020
Recommendations on complementary and alternative medicine within S3 guidelines in oncology: systematic quality assessment of underlying methodology.
Article in Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparing the Attitudes of Healthcare Professionals and Cancer Patients Toward the Integration and Perceived Effectiveness of Complementary and Alternative Medicine.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Education about complementary and alternative medicine in cancer self-help groups by trained peers.BMC complementary medicine and therapies · 2024Observational
- Article
- Determinants of use of oral complementary-alternative medicine among women with early breast cancer: a focus on cancer-related fatigue.Breast cancer research and treatment · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeComplementary and alternative medicine (CAM) is used by about half of all patients with cancer. Guidelines are an important tool to introduce evidence-based medicine into routine cancer care. The aim of our study was to assess methodology of the statements and recommendations concerning CAM.
methodsA systematic assessment of all S3 guidelines published until November 2018 was done. Methodology of all statements and recommendations concerning CAM which were declared as evidence-based was evaluated with respect to international standards. According to the AMSTAR-2 instrument search strategy including filters, searched databases, restrictions to the research question and description of the included studies were examined. In case of adaptations from other guidelines, all underlying guidelines were examined as well.
resultsAfter examining 212 guidelines, 82 evidence-based statements and recommendations regarding CAM could be identified. Four were derived by adaptation, 78 by a de-novo search. Only 11 of 78 (14%) fulfilled all assessment criteria. In 18 (19%) cases no information on search strategy was attainable in any document affiliated to the guideline, in 35 (45%) cases information on search strategy was superficial and in 54 (78%) cases the referred evidence was not presented in adequate detail.
conclusionsConcerning CAM statements and recommendations within S3 guidelines quality of evidence processing has several shortcomings. Guideline adaptions often lack transparency and traceability.
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.