Background. No comprehensive systematic review has been published since 1998 about the frequency with which cancer patients use complementary and alternative medicine (CAM). Methods. MEDLINE, AMED, and Embase databases were searched for surveys published until January 2009. Surveys conducted in Australia, Canada, Europe, New Zealand, and the United States with at least 100 adult cancer patients were included. Detailed information on methods and results was independently extracted by 2 reviewers. Methodological quality was assessed using a criteria list developed according to the STROBE guideline. Exploratory random effects metaanalysis and metaregression were applied. Results. Studies from 18 countries (152; >65 000 cancer patients) were included. Heterogeneity of CAM use was high and to some extent explained by differences in survey methods. The combined prevalence for “current use” of CAM across all studies was 40%. The highest was in the United States and the lowest in Italy and the Netherlands. Metaanalysis suggested an increase in CAM use from an estimated 25% in the 1970s and 1980s to more than 32% in the 1990s and to 49% after 2000. Conclusions. The overall prevalence of CAM use found was lower than often claimed. However, there was some evidence that the use has increased considerably over the past years. Therefore, the health care systems ought to implement clear strategies of how to deal with this. To improve the validity and reporting of future surveys, the authors suggest criteria for methodological quality that should be fulfilled and reporting standards that should be required.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1534735411423920

How Many Cancer Patients Use Complementary and Alternative Medicine: A Systematic Review and Metaanalysis

SUMMARY Objectives: To update previous systematic reviews of 12-month prevalence of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) use by general populations; to explore trends in CAM use by national populations; to develop and apply a brief tool for assessing methodological quality of published CAM-use prevalence surveys. Design: Nine databases were searched for published studies from 1998 onwards. Studies prior to 1998 were identified from two previous systematic reviews. A sixitem literature-based tool was devised to assess robustness and interpretability of CAM-use estimates. Results: Fifty-one reports from 49 surveys conducted in 15 countries met the inclusion criteria. We extracted 32 estimates of 12-month prevalence of use of any CAM (range 9.8‐76%) and 33 estimates of 12-month prevalence of visits to CAM practitioners (range 1.8‐48.7%). Quality of methodological reporting was variable; 30 ⁄51 survey reports (59%) met four or more of six quality criteria. Estimates of 12-month prevalence of any CAM use (excluding prayer) from surveys using consistent measurement methods showed remarkable stability in Australia (49%, 52%, 52%; 1993, 2000, 2004) and USA (36%, 38%; 2002, 2007). Conclusions: There was evidence of substantial CAM use in the 15 countries surveyed. Where national trends were discernable because of consistent measurement, there was no evidence to suggest a change in 12-month prevalence of CAM use since the previous systematic reviews were published in 2000. Periodic surveys are important to monitor population-level CAM use. Use of governmentsponsored health surveys may enhance robustness of population-based prevalence estimates. Comparisons across countries could be improved by standardising approaches to data collection.

https://midus.wisc.edu/findings/pdfs/1422.pdf

Prevalence of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) use by the general population: a systematic review and update

Much debate has focused on whether antioxidants interfere with the efficacy of cancer chemotherapy. The objective of this study is to systematically review the randomized, controlled clinical trial evidence evaluating the effects of concurrent use of antioxidants with chemotherapy on toxic side effects. We performed a search of literature from 1966-October 2007 using MEDLINE, Cochrane, CinAhl, AMED, AltHealthWatch and EMBASE databases. Randomized, controlled clinical trials reporting antioxidant-based mitigation of chemotherapy toxicity were included in the final tally. Searches were performed following a standardized protocol for systematic reviews. Only 33 of 965 articles considered, including 2,446 subjects, met the inclusion criteria. Antioxidants evaluated were: glutathione (11), melatonin (7), vitamin A (1), an antioxidant mixture (2), N-acetylcysteine (2), vitamin E (5), selenium (2), L-carnitine (1), Co-Q10 (1) and ellagic acid (1). The majority (24) of the 33 studies included reported evidence of decreased toxicities from the concurrent use of antioxidants with chemotherapy. Nine studies reported no difference in toxicities between the 2 groups. Only 1 study (vitamin A) reported a significant increase in toxicity in the antioxidant group. Five studies reported the antioxidant group completed more full doses of chemotherapy or had less-dose reduction than control groups. Statistical power and poor study quality were concerns with some studies. This review provides the first systematically reviewed evidence that antioxidant supplementation during chemotherapy holds potential for reducing dose-limiting toxicities. However, well-designed studies evaluating larger populations of patients given specific antioxidants defined by dose and schedule relative to chemotherapy are warranted.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/ijc.23754

Impact of antioxidant supplementation on chemotherapeutic toxicity: A systematic review of the evidence from randomized controlled trials

Background: This study aimed to systematically review the evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and to conduct a meta-analysis of the effects of yoga on physical and psychosocial outcomes in cancer patients and survivors. Methods: A systematic literature search in ten databases was conducted in November 2011. Studies were included if they had an RCT design, focused on cancer patients or survivors, included physical postures in the yoga program, compared yoga with a non-exercise or waitlist control group, and evaluated physical and/or psychosocial outcomes. Two researchers independently rated the quality of the included RCTs, and high quality was defined as >50% of the total possible score. Effect sizes (Cohen’s d) were calculated for outcomes studied in more than three studies among patients with breast cancer using means and standard deviations of post-test scores of the intervention and control groups. Results: Sixteen publications of 13 RCTs met the inclusion criteria, of which one included patients with lymphomas and the others focused on patients with breast cancer. The median quality score was 67% (range: 22–89%). The included studies evaluated 23 physical and 20 psychosocial outcomes. Of the outcomes studied in more than three studies among patients with breast cancer, we found large reductions in distress, anxiety, and depression (d = −0.69 to −0.75), moderate reductions in fatigue (d = −0.51), moderate increases in general quality of life, emotional function and social function (d = 0.33 to 0.49), and a small increase in functional well-being (d = 0.31). Effects on physical function and sleep were small and not significant. Conclusion: Yoga appeared to be a feasible intervention and beneficial effects on several physical and psychosocial symptoms were reported. In patients with breast cancer, effect size on functional well-being was small, and they were moderate to large for psychosocial outcomes.

/pdf/physical-and-psychosocial-benefits-of-yoga-in-cancer-58qfm0pd4n.pdf

Physical and psychosocial benefits of yoga in cancer patients and survivors, a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Objective. To explore the nondisclosure of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) use among cancer patients, including reasons for and outcomes from nondisclosure of CAM use, within the context of patient-doctor communication. Method. A systematic review was conducted exploring investigations surrounding the communication of CAM use for patients with cancer published until August 2011. Results.Atotalof21studieswerelocated,whichreporteda prevalence of CAM use among patients with cancer ranging between11%and95%;ofthesepatients,20%to77%didnot disclose their CAM use. The main reasons for nondisclosure werethedoctor’slackofinquiry;patient’santicipationofthe doctor’s disapproval, disinterest, or inability to help; and patient’s perception that disclosure of CAM use is irrelevant to their conventional care. There is some evidence to suggest that patient-doctor communication about the use of CAM was associated with an enhanced patient-doctor relationship and higher patient satisfaction. Conclusions. Although the use of CAM by patients with

/pdf/cancer-patient-disclosure-and-patient-doctor-communication-3g3h8rxrxf.pdf

Paz Fernadez-Ortega

Papers

Usefulness and Safety Evaluation of Chemotherapy Administration Device for Nurses: Experimental Study.

An Overview of the Fundamentals of Data Management, Analysis, and Interpretation in Quantitative Research.

Evidence on port-locking with heparin versus saline in patients with cancer not receiving chemotherapy: A randomized clinical trial