ReviewBMC complementary medicine and therapies2023
Use of complementary and alternative medicine by cancer patients in Colombia.
Review in BMC complementary medicine and therapies, 2023. 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, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Evidence-Based Perspectives on Complementary and Alternative Medicine in Cancer Treatment: Current Advances and Clinical Relevance.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2026Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 8 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe use of complementary and alternative medicines (CAM) among cancer patients varies greatly. The available data suggest an increasing use of CAM over time and a higher prevalence in low- and middle-income countries. However, no reliable data are available from Latin America. Accordingly, we examined the prevalence of CAM use among cancer patients from six Colombian regions.
methodsWe conducted a survey on cancer patients attending comprehensive cancer centres in six capital cities from different regions. The survey was designed based on a literature review and information gathered through focus groups on CAM terminology in Colombia. Independent random samples of patients from two comprehensive cancer centres in every city were obtained. Patients 18 years and older with a histopathological diagnosis of cancer undergoing active treatment were eligible. The prevalence of CAM use is reported as a percentage with the corresponding confidence interval. CAM types are reported by region. The sociodemographic and clinical characteristics of CAM users and non-users were compared using Chi square and t tests.
resultsIn total, 3117 patients were recruited. The average age 59.6 years old, and 62.8% were female. The prevalence of CAM use was 51.7%, and compared to non-users, CAM users were younger, more frequently women, affiliated with the health insurance plan for low-income populations and non-Catholic. We found no differences regarding the clinical stage or treatment modality, but CAM users reported more treatment-related side effects. The most frequent types of CAM were herbal products, specific foods and vitamins, and individually, soursop was the most frequently used product. Relevant variability between regions was observed regarding the prevalence and type of CAM used (range: 36.6% to 66.7%). The most frequent reason for using CAM was symptom management (30.5%), followed by curative purposes (19.5%).
conclusionsThe prevalence of CAM use among cancer patients in Colombia is high in general, and variations between regions might be related to differences in cultural backgrounds and access to comprehensive cancer care. The most frequently used CAM products and practices have little scientific support, suggesting the need to enhance integrative oncology research in the country.
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.