For Publishers
DiscoveryMetadataPeer reviewHostingPublishing
For Researchers
JoinPublishReviewCollect
Register
Blog
About
Search
Advanced search
My ScienceOpen
Search
For Publishers
For Researchers
Blog
About
55
views
129
references
 Top references
cited by
80
    
0 reviews
 Review
0
comments
 Comment
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      134
      similar
       All similar
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Clinical practice guidelines on the use of integrative therapies as supportive care in patients treated for breast cancer.

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPubMed
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          The majority of breast cancer patients use complementary and/or integrative therapies during and beyond cancer treatment to manage symptoms, prevent toxicities, and improve quality of life. Practice guidelines are needed to inform clinicians and patients about safe and effective therapies.

          Related collections

          Most cited references129

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Prevention and management of chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy in survivors of adult cancers: American Society of Clinical Oncology clinical practice guideline.

          Dawn L. Hershman, Christina Lacchetti, Robert H Dworkin … (2014)
          To provide evidence-based guidance on the optimum prevention and treatment approaches in the management of chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathies (CIPN) in adult cancer survivors. A systematic literature search identified relevant, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for the treatment of CIPN. Primary outcomes included incidence and severity of neuropathy as measured by neurophysiologic changes, patient-reported outcomes, and quality of life. A total of 48 RCTs met eligibility criteria and comprise the evidentiary basis for the recommendations. Trials tended to be small and heterogeneous, many with insufficient sample sizes to detect clinically important differences in outcomes. Primary outcomes varied across the trials, and in most cases, studies were not directly comparable because of different outcomes, measurements, and instruments used at different time points. The strength of the recommendations is based on the quality, amount, and consistency of the evidence and the balance between benefits and harms. On the basis of the paucity of high-quality, consistent evidence, there are no agents recommended for the prevention of CIPN. With regard to the treatment of existing CIPN, the best available data support a moderate recommendation for treatment with duloxetine. Although the CIPN trials are inconclusive regarding tricyclic antidepressants (such as nortriptyline), gabapentin, and a compounded topical gel containing baclofen, amitriptyline HCL, and ketamine, these agents may be offered on the basis of data supporting their utility in other neuropathic pain conditions given the limited other CIPN treatment options. Further research on these agents is warranted. © 2014 by American Society of Clinical Oncology.
          Article 0 comments Cited 370 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            The impact of measuring patient-reported outcomes in clinical practice: a systematic review of the literature.

            J. M. Valderas, A. Kotzeva, M Espallargues … (2008)
            The purpose of this paper is to summarize the best evidence regarding the impact of providing patient-reported outcomes (PRO) information to health care professionals in daily clinical practice. Systematic review of randomized clinical trials (Medline, Cochrane Library; reference lists of previous systematic reviews; and requests to authors and experts in the field). Out of 1,861 identified references published between 1978 and 2007, 34 articles corresponding to 28 original studies proved eligible. Most trials (19) were conducted in primary care settings performed in the USA (21) and assessed adult patients (25). Information provided to professionals included generic health status (10), mental health (14), and other (6). Most studies suffered from methodologic limitations, including analysis that did not correspond with the unit of allocation. In most trials, the impact of PRO was limited. Fifteen of 23 studies (65%) measuring process of care observed at least one significant result favoring the intervention, as did eight of 17 (47%) that measured outcomes of care. Methodological concerns limit the strength of inference regarding the impact of providing PRO information to clinicians. Results suggest great heterogeneity of impact; contexts and interventions that will yield important benefits remain to be clearly defined.
            Article 0 comments Cited 250 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              How many cancer patients use complementary and alternative medicine: a systematic review and metaanalysis.

              Markus Horneber, Gerd Bueschel, Gabriele Dennert … (2012)
              No comprehensive systematic review has been published since 1998 about the frequency with which cancer patients use complementary and alternative medicine (CAM). 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. 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. 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.
              Article 0 comments Cited 241 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
                Bookmark
                All references

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Journal ID (iso-abbrev): J. Natl. Cancer Inst. Monographs
                Title: Journal of the National Cancer Institute. Monographs
                ISSN (Electronic): 1745-6614
                ISSN (Print): 1052-6773
                Publication date (Electronic): Nov 2014
                Volume: 2014
                Issue: 50
                Affiliations
                [1 ] Department of Epidemiology, Mailman School of Public Health (HG, DH), Herbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center, (HG, DH), and Department of Medicine, College of Physicians and Surgeons (DH), Columbia University, New York, NY (HG, DH); School of Nursing, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada (LGB); Department of Oncology, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada (LEC); Institute for Health and Aging, University of California San Francisco, CA (MC); Chicken Soup Chinese Medicine, San Francisco, CA (MC); Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY (GD); Harbin Clinic, Rome, GA (MM); Gemini Group, Ann Arbor, MI (JP); Ottawa Integrative Cancer Center, Ottawa, ON, Canada (DS); Canadian College of Naturopathic Medicine, Toronto, ON, Canada (DS); Department of Family Medicine, University of Michigan Health System (AS, SMZ), Department of Environmental Health Sciences, School of Public Health (SMZ), and Department of Biostatistics (AS), University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI (AS, SMZ); Department of Breast Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX (DT). hg2120@columbia.edu.
                [2 ] Department of Epidemiology, Mailman School of Public Health (HG, DH), Herbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer Center, (HG, DH), and Department of Medicine, College of Physicians and Surgeons (DH), Columbia University, New York, NY (HG, DH); School of Nursing, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada (LGB); Department of Oncology, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada (LEC); Institute for Health and Aging, University of California San Francisco, CA (MC); Chicken Soup Chinese Medicine, San Francisco, CA (MC); Department of Medicine, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY (GD); Harbin Clinic, Rome, GA (MM); Gemini Group, Ann Arbor, MI (JP); Ottawa Integrative Cancer Center, Ottawa, ON, Canada (DS); Canadian College of Naturopathic Medicine, Toronto, ON, Canada (DS); Department of Family Medicine, University of Michigan Health System (AS, SMZ), Department of Environmental Health Sciences, School of Public Health (SMZ), and Department of Biostatistics (AS), University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI (AS, SMZ); Department of Breast Medical Oncology, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX (DT).
                Article
                Publisher Item ID: lgu041
                DOI: 10.1093/jncimonographs/lgu041
                PubMed ID: 25749602
                SO-VID: 3c1ab99a-8467-4c2d-b304-e7dcb63214b4
                Copyright © © The Author 2014. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.
                History

                Data availability:

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_

                Similar content134

                See all similar

                Cited by77

                See all cited by

                Most referenced authors2,182

                See all reference authors