Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42751373›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in oncology2026

Dietary supplements in integrative oncology.

Lise Alschuler

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in oncology, 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

1 author.

Lise AlschulerSonoran University of Health Sciences, Tempe, AZ, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Dietary supplement use is highly prevalent among adults and particularly common among individuals with cancer. Despite this prevalence, oncology providers have ambivalence about endorsing dietary supplements due to important questions regarding safety, interactions, and quality assurance. In the United States and globally, the dietary supplement market has expanded substantially under a regulatory framework established by the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA), yet the absence of premarket approval contributes to uncertainty and unfamiliarity among oncology providers. Constraints on treatment claims indirectly discourage large-scale clinical research, resulting in an evidence base that is dominated by epidemiologic studies, biomarker investigations, animal models, and trials conducted largely outside the conventional drug development paradigm. Within this context, integrative oncology has focused on selected agents with emerging data, including vitamin D, medicinal mushrooms, milk thistle, and melatonin. These supplements represent the most common categories and are among the most frequently used by individuals diagnosed with cancer. Collectively, these data indicate that selected dietary supplements may contribute to cancer prevention, treatment response, survival, and supportive care outcomes when integrated thoughtfully with standard therapies. This integration must be guided by rigorous quality assurance, individualized risk-benefit assessment, and ongoing research to clarify optimal adjunctive use.

Indexed as

botanicalsdietary supplementmelatoninmilk thistlemushroomvitamin D

Identifiers

PMID42751373
PMCPMC13579562

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.