ArticleSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2024
Oncology researchers' and clinicians' perceptions of complementary, alternative, and integrative medicine: an international, cross-sectional survey.
Article in Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Physicians' Knowledge and Experiences of Counseling on Complementary, Alternative, and Integrative Medicine in Cancer Care: a Qualitative Systematic Review.Current oncology reports · 2026Pooled it
- Questionnaire of evaluation of satisfaction and impact of the integrative oncology activities of the Tuscan Regional Health Service addressed to oncologists and health professionals of oncology departments.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026Article
- Exploring Pain Researcher and Clinician Perceptions of Complementary, Alternative, and Integrative Medicine: A Large-Scale, International Cross-Sectional Survey.Pain practice : the official journal of World Institute of Pain · 2026Article
- Complementary and Alternative Medicine in Oncology: A Concise Review of Utilization, Evidence, and Integration Challenges.Cancer reports (Hoboken, N.J.) · 2026Review
- Evaluation of integrative oncology modalities for symptom management: a MASCC/SIO global survey.BMC complementary medicine and therapies · 2025Article
- Article
- Article
- Expert-guided approaches to complementary interventions for common side effects of cancer therapies: a practice-based perspective from integrative oncology centers in Baden-Württemberg, Germany.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
- 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
- Utilization Rates and Factors Associated with Adoption of Complementary and Alternative Medicine Practices in the US.Journal of evidence-based integrative medicineArticle
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
backgroundComplementary, alternative, and integrative medicine (CAIM) has become an increasingly popular supportive therapy option for patients with cancer. The objective of this study was to investigate how researchers and clinicians in the oncology field perceive CAIM.
methodsWe conducted an online, anonymous, cross-sectional survey for researchers and clinicians who have published their work in oncology journals that are indexed in MEDLINE. The link to the survey was sent to 47, 991 researchers and clinicians whose contact information was extracted from their publications. The survey included various multiple-choice questions, and one open-ended question at the end to allow for any additional comments.
results751 respondents completed the survey, and they mostly identified themselves as researchers (n = 329, 45.13%), or as both researchers and clinicians (n = 332, 45.45%) in the field of oncology. Over half of the respondents perceive mind-body therapies (n = 354, 54.97%) to be the most promising CAIM category with regards to the prevention, treatment, and/or management of diseases related to oncology, and many respondents agreed that most CAIM therapies are safe (n = 218, 37.39%), and that clinicians should receive training on CAIM therapies via formal (n = 225, 38.59%) and supplemental education (n = 290, 49.83%). However, many respondents were unsure when asked if most CAIM therapies are effective (n = 202, 34.77%).
conclusionsThe findings from this study demonstrated great current interest in the use of CAIM in oncology. This information can serve as a foundation for conducting additional research and creating customized educational materials for researchers and clinicians in oncology.
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.