Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35870011›Full record

Observational studyJournal of cancer research and clinical oncology2023

Phytotherapy known and applied by head-neck cancer patients and medical students to treat oral discomfort in Germany: an observational study.

Maria-Louisa Ritschel, Jutta Hübner, Rebecca Wurm-Kuczera, Judith Büntzel

Open access · hybridAbstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. 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

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Maria-Louisa RitschelKlinik für Innere Medizin II, Hämatologie und Internistische Onkologie, Universitätsklinikum Jena, Jena, Germany.
Jutta HübnerKlinik für Innere Medizin II, Hämatologie und Internistische Onkologie, Universitätsklinikum Jena, Jena, Germany.
Rebecca Wurm-KuczeraKlinik für Hämatologie und Medizinische Onkologie, Universitätsmedizin Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany.
Judith BüntzelKlinik für Hämatologie und Medizinische Onkologie, Universitätsmedizin Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany. judith.buentzel@med.uni-goettingen.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9531-7910
Jena University Hospital · DEUniversitätsmedizin Göttingen · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPlant remedies are often used next to conventional standard of care by cancer patients. However, user rates are often underestimated and physicians usually feel not equipped to counsel patients. Hence, routinely recording the use of phytotherapy and sufficient knowledge on herbal medicine of the medical staff are required to improve the situation. Appraising the current state of knowledge of medical students may offer insight if education on herbals needs improvement. Here, we propose a simple anamnesis tool to assess knowledge and usage pattern of medical plants and demonstrate how to extrapolate symptom cluster participants associated with plants investigated in this study focussing on the common symptom of oral discomfort.

methodsBy screening German literature (popular science, specialist's literature, books for the interested layman) on medical plants used for treating oral discomfort, we were able to deviate a list of plants most often recommended for treating oral discomfort and to develop an anamnesis tool to assess knowledge and usage of 16 different plants. A group of 120 head-neck cancer patients (under surveillance, after receiving treatment) and 168 medical students were questioned at a collaborating out-patient clinic and via an online survey, respectively, in 2020. Students were additionally asked to write down indications of the plants they used in daily life. Knowledge and usage pattern were compared between both groups. Primary component analysis and heat-map analysis were used to visualize common and distinguishing features. Network analysis and VENN diagrams were used to extrapolate data of the medical students' cohort.

resultsHead-neck cancer patients and students show similar knowledge. However, students used significantly more plants in daily life than patients (p < 0.001). Overall, the user rate of patients and students were 82.50 and 93.94%, respectively. The top five most commonly known plants were similar in both groups (Marticaria recutita L., Zingiber offinicale ROSCOE, Taraxacum Wigg. Calendula officinalis L.) with the exception of Salvia officinalis L. (patients' cohort) and Carum carvi/Cuminum cyminum L. (students' cohort). Despite this slight difference, usage pattern of the top five most commonly used plants was the same between the groups. Students' indications were compared to indications found in the literature, unmasking several differences between commonly practiced and written knowledge on German phytotherapy. Network analysis revealed, that students associated certain plants with corresponding symptom clusters (e.g., coughing, oral mucositis).

conclusionThe majority of surveyed cancer patients as well as medical students use phytotherapy for treating oral discomfort. Both groups know and use similar plants. However, indications of written folk medicine differ from the lived and practiced tradition.

Indexed as

Head and Neck NeoplasmsPlants, MedicinalStudents, MedicalGermanyHumansPhytotherapyGerman folk medicineHead-neck cancerOral discomfortPhytotherapy

Identifiers

PMID35870011
PMCPMC10097744
OpenAlexW4286685194

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.