Dataset Information

Effectiveness of Complementary Therapies in Cancer Patients: A Systematic Review.

ABSTRACT: According to the World Health Organization, cancer is the second leading cause of death in the world. In Spain, about a quarter of a million cases were diagnosed in 2017, and 81% of the Spanish population has used, at least once, some kind of complementary therapy. Said therapies are increasingly being used by cancer patients. The purpose of the study is to analyse the effectiveness of complementary therapies among cancer patients. A systematic peer review was conducted following the PRISMA-ScR guide in four databases (PubMed, CINAHL, Scopus and WOS). The inclusion criteria were Randomised Clinical Trials, published between 2013 and 2018, with a value of 3 or more on the Jadad Scale. The protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42019127593). The study sample amounted to 1845 patients (64.55% women), the most common being breast cancer patients (794), followed by lung cancer patients (341). Fifteen complementary therapies were identified. We found two studies for each of the following: electroacupuncture, phytotherapy, hypnotherapy, guided imagery and progressive muscle relaxation. From the remaining ones, we identified a study on each therapy. The findings reveal some effective complementary therapies: auriculotherapy and acupuncture, laser moxibustion, hypnosis, Ayurveda, electroacupuncture, progressive muscle relaxation and guided imagery, yoga, phytotherapy, music therapy and traditional Chinese medicine. On the other hand, electroacupuncture, laser moxibustion and traditional Chinese medicine presented adverse effects, and kinesiology did not show effectiveness.

SUBMITTER: Guerra-Martin MD

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7908482 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Effectiveness of Complementary Therapies in Cancer Patients: A Systematic Review.

Guerra-Martín María Dolores MD Tejedor-Bueno María Sandra MS Correa-Casado Matías M

International journal of environmental research and public health 20210124 3

According to the World Health Organization, cancer is the second leading cause of death in the world. In Spain, about a quarter of a million cases were diagnosed in 2017, and 81% of the Spanish population has used, at least once, some kind of complementary therapy. Said therapies are increasingly being used by cancer patients. The purpose of the study is to analyse the effectiveness of complementary therapies among cancer patients. A systematic peer review was conducted following the PRISMA-ScR ...[more]

PMID: 33498883

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND: Smoking remains the leading preventable cause of premature deaths. Several pharmacological interventions now exist to aid smokers in cessation. These include Nicotine Replacement Therapy [NRT], bupropion, and varenicline. We aimed to assess their relative efficacy in smoking cessation by conducting a systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS: We searched 10 electronic medical databases (inception to Sept. 2006) and bibliographies of published reviews. We selected randomized controlled trials [RCTs] evaluating interventions for smoking cessation at 1 year, through chemical confirmation. Our primary endpoint was smoking cessation at 1 year. Secondary endpoints included short-term smoking cessation (approximately 3 months) and adverse events. We conducted random-effects meta-analysis and meta-regression. We compared treatment effects across interventions using head-to-head trials and when these did not exist, we calculated indirect comparisons. RESULTS: We identified 70 trials of NRT versus control at 1 year, Odds Ratio [OR] 1.71, 95% Confidence Interval [CI], 1.55-1.88, P =< 0.0001). This was consistent when examining all placebo-controlled trials (49 RCTs, OR 1.78, 95% CI, 1.60-1.99), NRT gum (OR 1.60, 95% CI, 1.37-1.86) or patch (OR 1.63, 95% CI, 1.41-1.89). NRT also reduced smoking at 3 months (OR 1.98, 95% CI, 1.77-2.21). Bupropion trials were superior to controls at 1 year (12 RCTs, OR1.56, 95% CI, 1.10-2.21, P = 0.01) and at 3 months (OR 2.13, 95% CI, 1.72-2.64). Two RCTs evaluated the superiority of bupropion versus NRT at 1 year (OR 1.14, 95% CI, 0.20-6.42). Varenicline was superior to placebo at 1 year (4 RCTs, OR 2.96, 95% CI, 2.12-4.12, P =< 0.0001) and also at approximately 3 months (OR 3.75, 95% CI, 2.65-5.30). Three RCTs evaluated the effectiveness of varenicline versus bupropion at 1 year (OR 1.58, 95% CI, 1.22-2.05) and at approximately 3 months (OR 1.61, 95% CI, 1.16-2.21). Using indirect comparisons, varenicline was superior to NRT when compared to placebo controls (OR 1.66, 95% CI 1.17-2.36, P = 0.004) or to all controls at 1 year (OR 1.73, 95% CI 1.22-2.45, P = 0.001). This was also the case for 3-month data. Adverse events were not systematically different across studies. CONCLUSION: NRT, bupropion and varenicline all provide therapeutic effects in assisting with smoking cessation. Direct and indirect comparisons identify a hierarchy of effectiveness.

Project description:A comprehensive systematic review of economic evaluations of complementary and integrative medicine (CIM) to establish the value of these therapies to health reform efforts.PubMed, CINAHL, AMED, PsychInfo, Web of Science and EMBASE were searched from inception through 2010. In addition, bibliographies of found articles and reviews were searched, and key researchers were contacted.Studies of CIM were identified using criteria based on those of the Cochrane complementary and alternative medicine group. All studies of CIM reporting economic outcomes were included. STUDY APPRAISAL METHODS: All recent (and likely most cost-relevant) full economic evaluations published 2001-2010 were subjected to several measures of quality. Detailed results of higher-quality studies are reported.A total of 338 economic evaluations of CIM were identified, of which 204, covering a wide variety of CIM for different populations, were published 2001-2010. A total of 114 of these were full economic evaluations. And 90% of these articles covered studies of single CIM therapies and only one compared usual care to usual care plus access to multiple licensed CIM practitioners. Of the recent full evaluations, 31 (27%) met five study-quality criteria, and 22 of these also met the minimum criterion for study transferability ('generalisability'). Of the 56 comparisons made in the higher-quality studies, 16 (29%) show a health improvement with cost savings for the CIM therapy versus usual care. Study quality of the cost-utility analyses (CUAs) of CIM was generally comparable to that seen in CUAs across all medicine according to several measures, and the quality of the cost-saving studies was slightly, but not significantly, lower than those showing cost increases (85% vs 88%, p=0.460).This comprehensive review identified many CIM economic evaluations missed by previous reviews and emerging evidence of cost-effectiveness and possible cost savings in at least a few clinical populations. Recommendations are made for future studies.

Project description:Objectives: Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) has become increasingly popular among cancer patients and is often used concomitantly with standard cancer therapies. Nonetheless, disclosure of CAM utilization by cancer patients to physicians, along with the provision of information on CAM therapies by physicians, is poor. This review explores the literature to synthesize existing information on communication about CAM usage, reasons for nondisclosure, and the clinical implications thereof. Methods: A search of medical literature published between December 1, 2009, and October 1, 2021 (last searched on April 18, 2022), on communications between physicians and cancer patients about CAM treatments was conducted through MEDLINE and EMBASE. Results were screened for inclusion, dually reviewed, and assessed using the QualSyst quality appraisal instrument. Findings were categorized and synthesized for review. Results: A total of 30 articles were located (n = 8721 total participants), which discussed elements related to patient disclosure of CAM use (n = 16), provider experiences or perceptions related to communication about CAM (n = 3), patterns of this communication (n = 6), and recommendations for effectively discussing CAM with cancer patients (n = 5). Reports indicate that nondisclosure is common throughout the cancer care spectrum. Factors influencing nondisclosure range from patient beliefs and attitudes about their provider, demographic characteristics, disease progression, physician-patient relationship, physician noninquiry, and type of CAM used; ultimately creating a gap in care that may have serious medical implications. Discussion: Many of the studies identified are small and confined to a single-center, hospital-network, or geographic setting, thereby limiting the applicability of findings and recommendations. Nonetheless, improving patient-physician communication is essential in delivering evidence-informed, patient-centered care and crucial for achieving patient satisfaction and positive health outcomes. The lack of adequate CAM dialogue about CAM use increases the risk of adverse interactions with conventional cancer treatments and results in missed opportunities for providers and patients to engage in vital information exchange. Future research and education are necessary to further identify barriers surrounding patient-provider communication about CAM treatments.

Project description:ObjectiveTo compare the effectiveness of various drug interventions in improving the clinical outcome of postoperative patients after aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (aSAH) and assist in determining the drugs of definite curative effect in improving clinical prognosis.MethodsEligible Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) were searched in databases of PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library (inception to Sep 2020). Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOS) score, Extended Glasgow Outcome Scale (GOSE) score or modified Rankin Scale (mRS) score was used as the main outcome measurements to evaluate the efficacy of various drugs in improving the clinical outcomes of postoperative patients with aSAH. The network meta-analysis (NMA) was conducted based on a random-effects model, dichotomous variables were determined by using odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI), and a surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) was generated to estimate the ranking probability of comparative effectiveness among different drug therapies.ResultsFrom the 493 of initial citation screening, forty-four RCTs (n = 10,626 participants) were eventually included in our analysis. Our NMA results showed that cilostazol (OR = 3.35,95%CI = 1.50,7.51) was the best intervention to improve the clinical outcome of patients (SUCRA = 87.29%, 95%CrI 0.07-0.46). Compared with the placebo group, only two drug interventions [nimodipine (OR = 1.61, 95%CI 1.01,2.57) and cilostazol (OR = 3.35, 95%CI 1.50, 7.51)] achieved significant statistical significance in improving the clinical outcome of patients.ConclusionsBoth nimodipine and cilostazol have exact curative effect to improve the outcome of postoperative patients with aSAH, and cilostazol may be the best drug to improve the outcome of patients after aSAH operation. Our study provides implications for future studies that, the combination of two or more drugs with relative safety and potential benefits (e.g., nimodipine and cilostazol) may improve the clinical outcome of patients more effectively.

Project description:BackgroundDespite the increasing economic assessment of biomarker-guided therapies, no clear agreement exists whether existing methods are sufficient or whether different methods might produce different cost-effectiveness results. This study aims to examine current practices of modeling companion biomarkers when assessing the cost-effectiveness of targeted cancer therapies. It investigates the current methods in modeling the characteristics of companion diagnostics based on existing economic evaluations of biomarker-guided therapies in cancer.MethodsA literature search was performed using Medline, Embase, EconLit, Cochrane library for economic evaluations of biomarker-guided therapies with companion diagnostics in cancer. Preferred Reporting Items of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were followed. Studies were selected using pre-specified eligibility criteria based on the PICO framework. To make the included studies more comparable, we qualitatively synthesized the data under nine domains of methods where consensus was deemed lacking.ResultsOnly four of the twenty-two studies included in this review were found to be of good quality with respect to incorporating the characteristics of companion biomarkers in economic evaluations. However, many evaluations focused on a pre-selected patient group rather than including all patients regardless of their biomarker status. Companion biomarker characteristics captured in evaluations were often limited to the cost or the accuracy of the test. Often, only the costs of biomarker testing were modelled. Clinical outcomes and health state utilities were often not included due to the limited data generated by clinical trials. Methods of economic evaluation were not applied consistently in assessments of companion cancer biomarkers for targeted therapies. It was also shown that conflicting cost-effectiveness results were likely depending on what comparator arm was chosen and what comparison structure was designed in the model.ConclusionWe found no consistent approach applied in assessing the value of companion biomarker tests and including the characteristics of biomarkers in an economic evaluation of targeted oncology therapies. Currently, many economic evaluations fail to capture the full value of companion biomarkers beyond sensitivity/specificity and cost related to biomarker testing.

Dataset Information

Effectiveness of Complementary Therapies in Cancer Patients: A Systematic Review.

Publications

Effectiveness of Complementary Therapies in Cancer Patients: A Systematic Review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets