Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33736643›Full record

ArticleBMC complementary medicine and therapies2021

Complementary and alternative medicine use by pediatric oncology patients before, during, and after treatment.

Emmanuelle Lüthi, Manuel Diezi, Nadia Danon, Julie Dubois, Jérôme Pasquier, Bernard Burnand, Pierre-Yves Rodondi

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC complementary medicine and therapies, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
9.0field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 45 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Predictors of herbal medicine use among cancer patients.Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology · 2023
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Emmanuelle LüthiInstitute of Family Medicine, University of Fribourg, Route des Arsenaux 41, 1700, Fribourg, Switzerland. emmanuelle.luethi@unifr.ch.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6039-4158
Manuel DieziPediatric Onco-Hematology Unit, Lausanne University Hospital, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Nadia DanonCenter for Primary Care and Public Health (Unisanté), University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Julie DuboisInstitute of Family Medicine, University of Fribourg, Route des Arsenaux 41, 1700, Fribourg, Switzerland.
Jérôme PasquierCenter for Primary Care and Public Health (Unisanté), University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Bernard BurnandCenter for Primary Care and Public Health (Unisanté), University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Pierre-Yves RodondiInstitute of Family Medicine, University of Fribourg, Route des Arsenaux 41, 1700, Fribourg, Switzerland.
Centre universitaire de médecine générale et santé publique, Lausanne · CHUniversity of Fribourg · CH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe prevalence of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) use and the modalities used by pediatric oncology patients vary widely across studies. In addition, the changes in the use of CAM over the course of treatment are understudied. Thus, this study aimed to explore (1) CAM use by pediatric oncology patients in relation to specific time intervals and (2) communication about CAM use between parents and oncologists.

methodsThis retrospective cross-sectional study was conducted among parents of children diagnosed with cancer at a Swiss pediatric hematology-oncology center by means of an online questionnaire. Questions were related to their child's CAM use over different time intervals, sources of information about CAM use, and communication with the oncologists.

resultsAmong 140 respondents, CAM was used by 54.3% of patients before diagnosis and 69.3% of patients after diagnosis. During each defined time interval, between 50 and 58.8% of the patients used at least one CAM. Homeopathy was the most popular CAM modality used during oncology treatment, during the first year after treatment, and between 1 and 5 years after the end of treatment. Osteopathy was the most popular CAM ≥5 years after the end of oncology treatment. Forty percent of respondents did not discuss CAM with their oncologist.

conclusionsThe high prevalence of CAM use and the different trends of use during the oncology care pathway and afterward underline the need to increase communication about CAM in the pediatric oncology setting, notably regarding benefits and risks of interaction with oncology treatment.

Indexed as

CommunicationPhysician-Patient RelationsAdolescentChildChild, PreschoolComplementary TherapiesCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansInfantInformation Seeking BehaviorMaleNeoplasmsRetrospective StudiesSurveys and QuestionnairesChildhood cancerComplementary and alternative medicinePediatric oncologyPhysician patient communicationSurvivorship

Identifiers

PMID33736643
PMCPMC7977159
OpenAlexW3136248175

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.