SynthesisCurrent oncology reports2021
A Systematic Review and Quality Assessment of Breast Cancer Clinical Practice Guidelines Providing Complementary and Alternative Medicine Recommendations.
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 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Validation of Chinese medicine syndrome differentiation in early breast cancer: a multicenter prospective clinical study.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- 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
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
purpose of reviewUp to 80% of patients with breast cancer are reported to use complementary and alternative medicine (CAM). Despite this high prevalence, many healthcare providers have little knowledge and education surrounding this topic and may be inadequately prepared to discuss such therapies with their patients. Given this knowledge gap, the purpose of this study was to systematically identify the quantity and assess the quality of CAM recommendations in clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for the treatment and/or management of breast cancer. RECENT
findingsThirty-four CPGs were deemed eligible, 5 of which mentioned CAM, and 4 of which made CAM recommendations. Eligible CPGs containing CAM recommendations were assessed with the AGREE II instrument. Scaled domain percentages from highest to lowest were (% overall, % CAM) as follows: scope and purpose (100.0%, 100.0%), editorial independence (100.0%, 100.0%), clarity of presentation (97.2%, 80.6%), rigour of development (80.2%, 80.2%), stakeholder involvement (88.9%, 77.8%), and applicability (58.3%, 58.3%). CPGs with favourable scores may provide practitioners with guidance on safe and effective use of CAM therapies. A need exists to improve the quality of CAM recommendations in CPGs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
34342715What 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.