Cargando…
Recommendations on complementary and alternative medicine within S3 guidelines in oncology: systematic quality assessment of underlying methodology
PURPOSE: Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) is used by about half of all patients with cancer. Guidelines are an important tool to introduce evidence-based medicine into routine cancer care. The aim of our study was to assess methodology of the statements and recommendations concerning CAM...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7382657/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32394053 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00432-020-03238-2 |
_version_ | 1783563288464850944 |
---|---|
author | Kutschan, Sabine Freuding, Maren Keinki, Christian Huebner, Jutta |
author_facet | Kutschan, Sabine Freuding, Maren Keinki, Christian Huebner, Jutta |
author_sort | Kutschan, Sabine |
collection | PubMed |
description | PURPOSE: Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) is used by about half of all patients with cancer. Guidelines are an important tool to introduce evidence-based medicine into routine cancer care. The aim of our study was to assess methodology of the statements and recommendations concerning CAM. METHODS: A systematic assessment of all S3 guidelines published until November 2018 was done. Methodology of all statements and recommendations concerning CAM which were declared as evidence-based was evaluated with respect to international standards. According to the AMSTAR-2 instrument search strategy including filters, searched databases, restrictions to the research question and description of the included studies were examined. In case of adaptations from other guidelines, all underlying guidelines were examined as well. RESULTS: After examining 212 guidelines, 82 evidence-based statements and recommendations regarding CAM could be identified. Four were derived by adaptation, 78 by a de-novo search. Only 11 of 78 (14%) fulfilled all assessment criteria. In 18 (19%) cases no information on search strategy was attainable in any document affiliated to the guideline, in 35 (45%) cases information on search strategy was superficial and in 54 (78%) cases the referred evidence was not presented in adequate detail. CONCLUSIONS: Concerning CAM statements and recommendations within S3 guidelines quality of evidence processing has several shortcomings. Guideline adaptions often lack transparency and traceability. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1007/s00432-020-03238-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7382657 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | Springer Berlin Heidelberg |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-73826572020-08-04 Recommendations on complementary and alternative medicine within S3 guidelines in oncology: systematic quality assessment of underlying methodology Kutschan, Sabine Freuding, Maren Keinki, Christian Huebner, Jutta J Cancer Res Clin Oncol Original Article – Clinical Oncology PURPOSE: Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) is used by about half of all patients with cancer. Guidelines are an important tool to introduce evidence-based medicine into routine cancer care. The aim of our study was to assess methodology of the statements and recommendations concerning CAM. METHODS: A systematic assessment of all S3 guidelines published until November 2018 was done. Methodology of all statements and recommendations concerning CAM which were declared as evidence-based was evaluated with respect to international standards. According to the AMSTAR-2 instrument search strategy including filters, searched databases, restrictions to the research question and description of the included studies were examined. In case of adaptations from other guidelines, all underlying guidelines were examined as well. RESULTS: After examining 212 guidelines, 82 evidence-based statements and recommendations regarding CAM could be identified. Four were derived by adaptation, 78 by a de-novo search. Only 11 of 78 (14%) fulfilled all assessment criteria. In 18 (19%) cases no information on search strategy was attainable in any document affiliated to the guideline, in 35 (45%) cases information on search strategy was superficial and in 54 (78%) cases the referred evidence was not presented in adequate detail. CONCLUSIONS: Concerning CAM statements and recommendations within S3 guidelines quality of evidence processing has several shortcomings. Guideline adaptions often lack transparency and traceability. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1007/s00432-020-03238-2) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2020-05-11 2020 /pmc/articles/PMC7382657/ /pubmed/32394053 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00432-020-03238-2 Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. |
spellingShingle | Original Article – Clinical Oncology Kutschan, Sabine Freuding, Maren Keinki, Christian Huebner, Jutta Recommendations on complementary and alternative medicine within S3 guidelines in oncology: systematic quality assessment of underlying methodology |
title | Recommendations on complementary and alternative medicine within S3 guidelines in oncology: systematic quality assessment of underlying methodology |
title_full | Recommendations on complementary and alternative medicine within S3 guidelines in oncology: systematic quality assessment of underlying methodology |
title_fullStr | Recommendations on complementary and alternative medicine within S3 guidelines in oncology: systematic quality assessment of underlying methodology |
title_full_unstemmed | Recommendations on complementary and alternative medicine within S3 guidelines in oncology: systematic quality assessment of underlying methodology |
title_short | Recommendations on complementary and alternative medicine within S3 guidelines in oncology: systematic quality assessment of underlying methodology |
title_sort | recommendations on complementary and alternative medicine within s3 guidelines in oncology: systematic quality assessment of underlying methodology |
topic | Original Article – Clinical Oncology |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7382657/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32394053 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00432-020-03238-2 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT kutschansabine recommendationsoncomplementaryandalternativemedicinewithins3guidelinesinoncologysystematicqualityassessmentofunderlyingmethodology AT freudingmaren recommendationsoncomplementaryandalternativemedicinewithins3guidelinesinoncologysystematicqualityassessmentofunderlyingmethodology AT keinkichristian recommendationsoncomplementaryandalternativemedicinewithins3guidelinesinoncologysystematicqualityassessmentofunderlyingmethodology AT huebnerjutta recommendationsoncomplementaryandalternativemedicinewithins3guidelinesinoncologysystematicqualityassessmentofunderlyingmethodology |