Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37715831›Full record

ArticleJournal of cancer research and clinical oncology2023

Introducing a standardized assessment of patients' interest in and usage of CAM in routine cancer care: chances and risks from patients' and physicians' point of view.

M Shalgouny, J Bertz-Lepel, L Fischer V Weikersthal, J Herbin, M Meier-Höfig, R Mücke, U Rohe, T Stauch, C Stoll, D Troeltzsch and 4 more

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article 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 6 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 11% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

14 authors at 9 institutions in 1 country.

M ShalgounyKlinik für Innere Medizin II, Universitätsklinikum Jena, Am Klinikum 1, 07747, Jena, Germany. mana.shalgouny@uni-jena.de.
J Bertz-LepelKlinik für Hämatologie, Helios Klinikum Bad Saarow, Bad Saarow, Germany.
L Fischer V WeikersthalPraxis für Hämatologie und Internistische Onkologie, Gesundheitszentrum St. Marien GmbH, Amberg, Germany.
J HerbinOnkologische Schwerpunktpraxis Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
M Meier-Höfig3. Medizinische Klinik, Städtisches Krankenhaus Kiel, Kiel, Germany.
R MückeMVZ Strahlentherapie RheinMainNahe GmbH, Mainz, Germany.
U RoheSt. Barbara Klinik Hamm, Hamm, Germany.
T StauchKlinik für Onkologie, Median Adelsbergklinik Bad Berka, Bad Berka, Germany.
C StollRehaklinik für Orthopädie, Klinik Herzoghöhe Bayreuth, Bayreuth, Germany.
D TroeltzschKlinik für Mund-, Kiefer- und Gesichtschirurgie, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
S WittmannKlinik für Onkologie, Hämatologie und Palliativmedizin, Helios Dr. Horst Schmidt Kliniken Wiesbaden, Wiesbaden, Germany.
O KurzMedizinische Klinik III, Marien Kliniken Siegen, Siegen, Germany.
R NaumannMedizinische Klinik III, Marien Kliniken Siegen, Siegen, Germany.
J HuebnerKlinik für Innere Medizin II, Universitätsklinikum Jena, Am Klinikum 1, 07747, Jena, Germany.
Jena University Hospital · DEPraxis für Hämatologie und Onkologie · DEBayreuth Medical Center · DECharité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin · DEEvangelisches Krankenhaus Hamm · DEHelios Dr. Horst Schmidt Kliniken Wiesbaden · DEHelios Hospital Bad Saarow · DESchmerzklinik Kiel · DEZentralklinik Bad Berka · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCancer patients often use complementary and alternative medicine (CAM), however, standardized assessment in clinical routine is missing. The aim of this study was to evaluate a screening questionnaire on CAM usage that was published in the S3 Guideline Complementary Medicine in the Treatment of Oncological Patients.

methodsWe developed a survey questionnaire to assess the practicability of the guideline questionnaire and communication on CAM between health care providers (HCPs) and patients. We collected 258 guideline questionnaires and 116 survey questionnaires from ten clinics and held twelve semi-structured interviews with HCPs.

results85% used at least one of the listed CAM methods, 54 participants (N = 77) never disclosed usage to a physician. The most frequently used CAM methods were physical activity (76.4%) and vitamin D (46.4%). 25.2% used at least one method, that was labeled risky by the guideline. 53.4% did not know of CAM's risk of interactions and side effects. Introducing the guideline questionnaire in routine cancer care increased the rate of patients talking to an HCP regarding CAM significantly from 35.5 to 87.3%. The HCPs stated positive effects as an initiation of conversation, increased safety within CAM usage and patients feeling thankful and taken seriously. However, due to the limited amount of time available for discussions on CAM, generalized distribution to all patients was not feasible.

conclusionInstitutions should focus on implementing standard procedures and resources that help HCPs discuss CAM on a regular basis. HCPs should meet the patient's demands for CAM counseling and make sure they are equipped professionally.

Indexed as

Complementary TherapiesNeoplasmsPhysiciansHealth PersonnelHumansSurveys and QuestionnairesCancerComplementary medicineInteractionsNeoplasmPatient-physician communication

Identifiers

PMID37715831
PMCPMC10645655
OpenAlexW4386802094

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.