Dataset Information

An Overview of Systematic Reviews: Complementary Therapies for Cancer Patients.

ABSTRACT: Introduction: This article critically examines the systematic reviews (SR) and meta-analysis (MA) of complementary therapies for cancer patients to appraise the evidence level, and offers suggestions for future research and practice. Methods: The Cochrane Library and MEDLINE were searched from their inception to January 2018, to identify SR and MA of complementary therapies available for cancer patients. Final selected SR and MA were methodologically evaluated for their quality by applying the Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR2) instrument. Data extraction and risk of quality assessments were performed by 2 independent reviewers. Results: A total of 104 studies were included in the analysis. The majority of the individual clinical trials included in the SR and MA were performed in China (48%) and the United States (26.9%). Breast cancer was the most studied cancer type (25%), and acupuncture was the most studied intervention (21%). Side effects of cancer such as pain, depression, and fatigue were effectively managed with complementary therapies. The methodologically problematic items included not listing the excluded studies and lack of protocol or protocol registration. Conclusions: With increasing interest in research, complementary therapies appear to be beneficial in reducing side effects and raising the quality of life of cancer patients. Complementary therapies have generally been studied for all cancers, with acupuncture being the most researched, regardless of the cancer type. Since AMSTAR2 is a stricter assessment tool than before, future studies need to consider the risk of methodological bias with caution and discuss appropriate overall quality assessment tools.

SUBMITTER: Lee SM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6933541 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Jan-Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

An Overview of Systematic Reviews: Complementary Therapies for Cancer Patients.

Lee Seong Min SM Choi Ho Cheol HC Hyun Min Kyung MK

Integrative cancer therapies 20190101

<b>Introduction:</b> This article critically examines the systematic reviews (SR) and meta-analysis (MA) of complementary therapies for cancer patients to appraise the evidence level, and offers suggestions for future research and practice. <b>Methods:</b> The Cochrane Library and MEDLINE were searched from their inception to January 2018, to identify SR and MA of complementary therapies available for cancer patients. Final selected SR and MA were methodologically evaluated for their quality by ...[more]

PMID: 31876212

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesAs clinical practice guidelines vary widely in their search strategies and recommendations of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) for depression, this overview aimed at systematically summarising the level 1 evidence on CAM for patients with a clinical diagnosis of depression.MethodsPubMed, PsycInfo and Central were searched for meta-analyses of randomised controlled clinical trials (RCTs) until 30 June 2018. Outcomes included depression severity, response, remission, relapse and adverse events. The quality of evidence was assessed according to Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) considering the methodological quality of the RCTs and meta-analyses, inconsistency, indirectness, imprecision of the evidence and the potential risk of publication bias.ResultsThe literature search revealed 26 meta-analyses conducted between 2002 and 2018 on 1-49 RCTs in major, minor and seasonal depression. In patients with mild to moderate major depression, moderate quality evidence suggested the efficacy of St. John's wort towards placebo and its comparative effectiveness towards standard antidepressants for the treatment for depression severity and response rates, while St. John's wort caused significant less adverse events. In patients with recurrent major depression, moderate quality evidence showed that mindfulness-based cognitive therapy was superior to standard antidepressant drug treatment for the prevention of depression relapse. Other CAM evidence was considered as having low or very low quality.ConclusionsThe effects of all but two CAM treatments found in studies on clinical depressed patients based on low to very low quality of evidence. The evidence has to be downgraded mostly due to avoidable methodological flaws of both the original RCTs and meta-analyses not following the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Further research is needed.

Project description:BackgroundSeveral targeted therapies for cancer have been associated with cardiovascular toxicity. The evidence for this association has not been synthesized systematically nor has the quality of evidence been considered. We synthesized systematic review evidence of cardiovascular toxicity of individual targeted agents.MethodsWe searched MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for systematic reviews with meta-analyses of cardiovascular outcomes for individual agents published to May 2020. We selected reviews according to prespecified eligibility criteria (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews CRD42017080014). We classified evidence of cardiovascular toxicity as sufficient, probable, possible, or indeterminate for specific cardiovascular outcomes based on statistical significance, study quality, and size.ResultsFrom 113 systematic reviews, we found at least probable systematic review evidence of cardiovascular toxicity for 18 agents, including high- and all-grade hypertension for bevacizumab, ramucirumab, axitinib, cediranib, pazopanib, sorafenib, sunitinib, vandetanib, aflibercept, abiraterone, and enzalutamide, and all-grade hypertension for nintedanib; high- and all-grade arterial thromboembolism (includes cardiac and/or cerebral events) for bevacizumab and abiraterone, high-grade arterial thromboembolism for trastuzumab, and all-grade arterial thromboembolism for sorafenib and tamoxifen; high- and all-grade venous thromboembolism (VTE) for lenalidomide and thalidomide, high-grade VTE for cetuximab and panitumumab, and all-grade VTE for bevacizumab; high- and all-grade left ventricular ejection fraction decline or congestive heart failure for bevacizumab and trastuzumab, and all-grade left ventricular ejection fraction decline/congestive heart failure for pazopanib and sunitinib; and all-grade corrected QT interval prolongation for vandetanib.ConclusionsOur review provides an accessible summary of the cardiovascular toxicity of targeted therapy to assist clinicians and patients when managing cardiovascular health.

Project description:IntroductionThe introduction of targeted therapies for cancer has contributed to dramatic improvements in patient survival. Nevertheless, several targeted therapies have been associated with 'off-target' adverse effects, based on varying levels of evidence. To date, this evidence has not been systematically synthesised. We will synthesise published systematic review evidence of cardiovascular toxicity associated with targeted cancer therapies.Methods and analysisWe will include systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials and observational studies that report on cardiovascular outcomes for individual agents. We will identify systematic reviews by applying predeveloped, standardised search strategies within Embase, Medline and Cochrane Central. Two independent reviewers will identify reviews published up to 31 December 2016 using predefined eligibility criteria. They will resolve ambiguous cases through consensus, arbitrated by a third reviewer if required. The reviewers will extract and report data according to methodological guidelines for overviews provided by the Cochrane Collaboration, Joanna Briggs Institute and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocols. They will assess the quality of included reviews by applying the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews tool. They will judge the quality of evidence in included reviews based on their assessment of bias and incorporation into the interpretation of findings. In synthesising the evidence, we will classify agents based on systematic review evidence of toxicity (sufficient, probable, possible or indeterminate) for specific cardiovascular outcomes (congestive heart failure, myocardial infarction, ischaemic heart disease, left ventricular ejection fraction decline, cerebrovascular disease, pulmonary embolism, thrombosis and hypertension). This will provide clinicians and patients with an accessible synthesis based on robust methodology.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval is not required for overviews. We will conduct the study in collaboration with consumer representatives. We will submit results for peer-review publication, and disseminate them through established clinical and consumer networks.Prospero registration numberCRD42017080014.

Dataset Information

An Overview of Systematic Reviews: Complementary Therapies for Cancer Patients.

Publications

An Overview of Systematic Reviews: Complementary Therapies for Cancer Patients.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets