ReviewIntegrative medicine research2021
Complementary and integrative medicine mention and recommendations: A systematic review and quality assessment of lung cancer clinical practice guidelines.
Review in Integrative medicine research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- A systematic review and quality assessment of complementary and alternative medicine recommendations in insomnia clinical practice guidelines.BMC complementary medicine and therapies · 2021Pooled it
- Complementary and alternative medicine recommendations for depression: a systematic review and assessment of clinical practice guidelines.BMC complementary medicine and therapies · 2020Pooled it
- Oncology researchers' and clinicians' perceptions of complementary, alternative, and integrative medicine: an international, cross-sectional survey.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2024Article
- Complementary and alternative medicine mention and recommendations in pancreatic cancer clinical practice guidelines: A systematic review and quality assessment.Integrative medicine research · 2023Review
- The Provision of Complementary, Alternative, and Integrative Medicine Information and Services: a Review of World Leading Oncology Hospital Websites.Current oncology reports · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundComplementary and integrative medicine (CIM) use is widely sought by those diagnosed with cancer, with up to 50% of lung cancer patients seeking these therapies in the United States. The purpose of this study was to identify the quantity and assess the quality of CIM recommendations in clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for the treatment and/or management of lung cancer.
methodsA systematic review was conducted to identify lung cancer CPGs. MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL were searched from 2008 to 2018, along with the Guidelines International Network and the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health websites. Eligible guidelines containing recommendations for the treatment and/or management of lung cancer were assessed with the Appraisal of Guidelines, Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) instrument.
resultsFrom 589 unique search results, 4 guidelines mentioned CIM, of which 3 guidelines made CIM recommendations. Scaled domain percentages from highest to lowest were: scope and purpose (82.4% overall, 76.9% CIM), clarity and presentation (96.3% overall, 63.0% CIM), editorial independence (61.1% overall, 61.1% CIM), rigour of development (62.5% overall, 54.9% CIM), stakeholder involvement (66.7% overall, 42.6% CIM) and applicability (29.9% overall, 18.8% CIM). Quality varied within and across guidelines.
conclusionGuidelines that scored well could serve as a framework for discussion between patients and healthcare professionals regarding use of CIM therapies in the context of lung cancer. Guidelines that scored lower could be improved according to the AGREE II instrument, with insight from other guidelines development resources.
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.