Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33587206›Full record

SynthesisCurrent oncology reports2021

The Presence of Complementary and Alternative Medicine Recommendations in Head and Neck Cancer Guidelines: Systematic Review and Quality Assessment.

Jeremy Y Ng, Ekaterina Dogadova

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Current oncology reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.6field-weighted citation impact, top 18% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. 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 · 2024
    Article
  4. Review
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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Jeremy Y NgDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, Faculty of Health Sciences, McMaster University, Michael G. DeGroote Centre for Learning and Discovery, Room 2112, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, ON, L8S 4K1, Canada. ngjy2@mcmaster.ca.ORCID 0000-0003-0031-5873
Ekaterina DogadovaDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, Faculty of Health Sciences, McMaster University, Michael G. DeGroote Centre for Learning and Discovery, Room 2112, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, ON, L8S 4K1, Canada.
Impact · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purpose of reviewA high proportion of head and neck cancer (HNC) patients use complementary and alternative medicine (CAM), however, healthcare professionals generally have little knowledge about the safety and efficacy of these therapies. The purpose of this study was to determine the quantity and assess the quality of CAM recommendations across clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for the treatment and/or management of HNC. RECENT

findingsMEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL were systematically searched for HNC CPGs published between 2009 and April 2020; the Guidelines International Network and the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health websites were also were searched. Eligible CPGs containing CAM recommendations were assessed twice with the Appraisal of Guidelines, Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) instrument, once for the overall CPG and once for the CAM sections. Of 305 unique search results, 7 CPGs mentioned CAM and 4 CPGs made CAM recommendations. The overall CPG scored higher than the CAM section for 4 of 6 domains (overall, CAM): scope and purpose (93.8%, 93.8%), clarity of presentation (88.2%, 64.6%), stakeholder involvement (68.8%, 39.6%), rigor of development (58.3%, 34.6%), editorial independence (42.7%, 42.7%), and applicability (51.6%, 19.8%). Quality varied within and between CPGs. Highly scoring CPGs serve as evidence-based resources that clinicians can use to inform their patients about safe and effective CAM use; CPGs achieving variable or lower scores could be improved in future updates based on currently available guideline development/implementation tools. Future research should identify CAM therapies supported by sufficient evidence to be included as part of HNC CPGs.

Indexed as

Practice Guidelines as TopicQuality Assurance, Health CareComplementary TherapiesHead and Neck NeoplasmsHumansUnited StatesAGREE IIClinical practice guidelineComplementary and alternative medicineHead and neck cancerSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID33587206
OpenAlexW3132948126

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.