SynthesisFrontiers in public health2026
Cost-effectiveness of integrative oncology for sustainable and patient-centred cancer care: a systematic review in the context of the WHO global traditional medicine strategy 2025-2034.
Synthesis in Frontiers in public health, 2026. 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.
- Plant extracts and phytochemicals in canine and feline mammary cancer models: current evidence and comparative perspectives.Veterinary research communications · 2026Review
- Integrative oncology: evolution, framework, and future directions.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- Behavioral Medicine in Cholangiocarcinoma: Bridging the Gap Between Biology and Behavior.Cancer control : journal of the Moffitt Cancer CenterReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: The World Health Organisation (WHO) recently released the Global Traditional Medicine Strategy 2025-2034, calling for strengthened evidence, governance, and integration of safe, effective traditional and complementary practices into national health systems. In oncology, integrative oncology (IO) combines evidence-informed complementary and traditional modalities with standard cancer care to improve symptom control, quality of life, and patient-centred outcomes. Although clinical benefits are increasingly recognised, comprehensive economic evidence remains limited, constraining reimbursement and policy implementation. Methods: This systematic review synthesised cost-effectiveness analyses of IO interventions and evaluated their implications for sustainable cancer care within the WHO Traditional, Complementary and Integrative Medicine (TCIM) framework. Searches of PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO, EconLit, and CINAHL identified peer-reviewed CEAs, cost-utility, or cost-benefit studies comparing IO with conventional oncology care. Results: Ten studies met inclusion criteria, comprising six randomised controlled trials, three real-world data analyses, and one model-based evaluation from Europe, Australia, Asia, and the United States. Interventions included psychological, phytotherapeutic, rehabilitative, and mind-body programmes. Across all modalities, IO interventions were either dominant or cost-effective within national willingness-to-pay thresholds. Methodological quality was high (mean CHEERS score 93%), although few studies addressed longterm outcomes, structural uncertainty, or equity impacts. Discussion: Overall, IO approaches showed favourable or dominant cost-effectiveness with phytotherapeutic and mind-body interventions revealing the most favourable cost-effectiveness profiles, followed by rehabilitative and psychological programmes economic results. As cost-effectiveness analyses are not yet available for all integrative oncology modalities, this systematic review represents an initial synthesis; the findings indicate a consistent trend towards cost-effectiveness, while generalisability across all IO approaches remains to be established. These findings align with the priorities of the WHO Global Traditional Medicine Strategy 2025-2034 and suggest that integrative oncology may support patient-centred, sustainable, and culturally sensitive cancer care, potentially supporting its value-based integration into national reimbursement frameworks. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420251019386, CRD4201019386.
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.