Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41542105›Full record

ArticleGeburtshilfe und Frauenheilkunde2026

Validation of the Questionnaire for the Structured Assessment of the Use of Complementary Medicine Methods and Procedures in Patients from the S3 Guideline Complementary Medicine in Oncology and Practical Use of it in Patients with Gynecological Cancer.

Katharina Seitz, Anna-Katharin Theuser, Carolin C Hack, Peter A Fasching, Julius Emons, Lena Brückner, Katharina Au, Matthias W Beckmann, Milena Beierlein

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Geburtshilfe und Frauenheilkunde, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

9 authors.

Katharina SeitzDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Erlangen University Hospital, Comprehensive Cancer Center Erlangen-European Metropolitan Area Nuremberg (CCC ER-EMN), Friedrich Alexander University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Erlangen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-2638-2655
Anna-Katharin TheuserInstitute for Women's Health/Institut für Frauengesundheit GmbH, Erlangen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-2860-3500
Carolin C HackDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Erlangen University Hospital, Comprehensive Cancer Center Erlangen-European Metropolitan Area Nuremberg (CCC ER-EMN), Friedrich Alexander University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Erlangen, Germany.
Peter A FaschingDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Erlangen University Hospital, Comprehensive Cancer Center Erlangen-European Metropolitan Area Nuremberg (CCC ER-EMN), Friedrich Alexander University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Erlangen, Germany.
Julius EmonsDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Erlangen University Hospital, Comprehensive Cancer Center Erlangen-European Metropolitan Area Nuremberg (CCC ER-EMN), Friedrich Alexander University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Erlangen, Germany.
Lena BrücknerDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Erlangen University Hospital, Comprehensive Cancer Center Erlangen-European Metropolitan Area Nuremberg (CCC ER-EMN), Friedrich Alexander University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Erlangen, Germany.
Katharina AuDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Erlangen University Hospital, Comprehensive Cancer Center Erlangen-European Metropolitan Area Nuremberg (CCC ER-EMN), Friedrich Alexander University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Erlangen, Germany.
Matthias W BeckmannDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Erlangen University Hospital, Comprehensive Cancer Center Erlangen-European Metropolitan Area Nuremberg (CCC ER-EMN), Friedrich Alexander University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Erlangen, Germany.
Milena BeierleinDepartment of Gynecology and Obstetrics, Erlangen University Hospital, Comprehensive Cancer Center Erlangen-European Metropolitan Area Nuremberg (CCC ER-EMN), Friedrich Alexander University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, Erlangen, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: For the first time, an S3 guideline on complementary medicine in oncology was published in 2021, 2024 in May version 2.0 was published. The broad spectrum of complementary and integrative medicine was presented at the highest level of evidence, the respective established interventions were comprehensively addressed, and recommendations were made in the case of sufficient data availability. The guideline also contains a questionnaire for a risk-adapted evaluation of utilized CIM (complementary and integrative medicine) interventions. In this article, the clinical validation of this questionnaire from the guideline is carried out, as well as a descriptive analysis of utilization of CIM interventions in a cohort with gynecologial cancer. Methods: The present study is a cross-sectional study conducted at the Women's Hospital of the University Hospital Erlangen. In a first stage, rolled out from January to February 2022, fifty patients completed the questionnaire for the structured assessment of the use of complementary medicine from the S3 guideline "Complementary Medicine in Oncology", as well as a validation questionnaire. The latter included the comprehensibility of the questions, the time taken to complete them, as well as any problems encountered and suggestions for improvement. After successful validation of the questionnaire, in the second phase, patients with gynecologic cancer were invited to participate in the survey.The patient population was characterized by descriptive analyses of age, educational level, lifestyle factors such as dietary habits and physical activity, as well as tumor characteristics and treatment. In addition, the frequency of complaints and the utilization of complementary interventions and procedures, classified according to their risk of interactions, were analyzed. Results: Validation showed that forty-five out of fifty (90%) patients felt that the questionnaire was clear to understand. Forty-seven (94%) of respondents indicated that the time taken to answer the questions was reasonable. In figures, 42% needed less than five minutes and 48% less than ten minutes.When looking at the utilization of CIM in patients with gynecological tumors, most participants were suffering from ovarian cancer (n = 61, 41.8%), followed by endometrial cancer (n = 33, 22.6%), cervical cancer (n = 32, 21.9%) and vulvar cancer (n = 20, 13.7%). In total, the utilization of a CIM intervention was described 267 times. According to the traffic light classification system in the guideline questionnaire the interventions of the green category (low risk for interaction) (n = 124, 46.4%) was the most commonly used. Therapies in the yellow category were used slightly less frequently (n = 93, 34.8%). CIM interventions of the red category were mentioned 50 times (18.7%). Conclusion and Discussion: To date, there has been a lack of standardized surveys that explicitly include CIM.The questionnaire published in the S3 guideline is well understandable and concise. It can therefore be used in a structured way not only in research, but also in everyday clinical practice to avoid interactions and increase patients' safety. However, further training of oncologists is required regarding the application of the interventions mentioned in the questionnaire.

Indexed as

cancercomplementary medicinegynecological oncologyintegrative medicine

Identifiers

PMID41542105
PMCPMC12803761

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.