互补医学:即使是调查中,方法也需要详细阐述

C. Witt
{"title":"互补医学:即使是调查中,方法也需要详细阐述","authors":"C. Witt","doi":"10.1159/000504457","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose: It is usual for cancer patients to use complementary and alternative medicines (CAMs) and yet the literature evaluating their efficacy in cancer patients is very limited. The objective of the present study was to report on the nature, frequency of use, and patient-reported outcome of CAMs in a single-center study. Methods: All the consecutive patients treated between November 2017 and June 2018 at the Lucien Neuwirth Cancer Institute (France) were screened. Their reasons for using CAMs and their usage habits were collected. Patients evaluated their benefit. Results: Of the 209 patients screened, 200 patients were included. CAMs ranged from osteopathy, homeopathy, acupuncture, healing touch, magnetism, naturopathy, suction cups, Chinese medicine, reflexology, to hypnosis. CAMs were widely used (n = 166, 83%), the first being osteopathy (n = 99, 49.5%), the second homeopathy (n = 78, 39.0%), and finally acupuncture (n = 76, 38.0%). Whatever the CAM, high satisfaction rates were reported (median satisfaction: 61-81%). CAMs were mainly used to prevent/treat side effects of anticancer treatments (81.2% for healing touch), increase well-being (55.4% for naturopathy), improve the immune system (16.9% for homeopathy), and treat cancer (n = 3, 5.1% for homeopathy). Patients could easily consider using CAMs, as up to 50.8% would have accepted a consultation. Conclusions: The reasons for using CAMs differed among patients. They praised CAMs and kept asking for more information although there is limited evidence about their efficacy in the literature. Thus, prospective randomized controlled trials exploring the safety and efficacy of CAMs in cancer patients are needed.","PeriodicalId":351794,"journal":{"name":"Karger Kompass Onkologie","volume":"34 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Komplementärmedizin: Auch bei Umfragen muss die Methodik im Detail berichtet werden\",\"authors\":\"C. Witt\",\"doi\":\"10.1159/000504457\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Purpose: It is usual for cancer patients to use complementary and alternative medicines (CAMs) and yet the literature evaluating their efficacy in cancer patients is very limited. The objective of the present study was to report on the nature, frequency of use, and patient-reported outcome of CAMs in a single-center study. Methods: All the consecutive patients treated between November 2017 and June 2018 at the Lucien Neuwirth Cancer Institute (France) were screened. Their reasons for using CAMs and their usage habits were collected. Patients evaluated their benefit. Results: Of the 209 patients screened, 200 patients were included. CAMs ranged from osteopathy, homeopathy, acupuncture, healing touch, magnetism, naturopathy, suction cups, Chinese medicine, reflexology, to hypnosis. CAMs were widely used (n = 166, 83%), the first being osteopathy (n = 99, 49.5%), the second homeopathy (n = 78, 39.0%), and finally acupuncture (n = 76, 38.0%). Whatever the CAM, high satisfaction rates were reported (median satisfaction: 61-81%). CAMs were mainly used to prevent/treat side effects of anticancer treatments (81.2% for healing touch), increase well-being (55.4% for naturopathy), improve the immune system (16.9% for homeopathy), and treat cancer (n = 3, 5.1% for homeopathy). Patients could easily consider using CAMs, as up to 50.8% would have accepted a consultation. Conclusions: The reasons for using CAMs differed among patients. They praised CAMs and kept asking for more information although there is limited evidence about their efficacy in the literature. Thus, prospective randomized controlled trials exploring the safety and efficacy of CAMs in cancer patients are needed.\",\"PeriodicalId\":351794,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Karger Kompass Onkologie\",\"volume\":\"34 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Karger Kompass Onkologie\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1159/000504457\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Karger Kompass Onkologie","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1159/000504457","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:癌症患者通常使用补充和替代药物(CAMs),但文献评价其对癌症患者的疗效非常有限。本研究的目的是在单中心研究中报告CAMs的性质、使用频率和患者报告的结果。方法:对2017年11月至2018年6月在法国Lucien Neuwirth癌症研究所(Lucien Neuwirth Cancer Institute)连续治疗的所有患者进行筛查。收集他们使用cam的原因和使用习惯。患者评估了他们的获益。结果:209例患者中,纳入200例。cam的范围从整骨疗法、顺势疗法、针灸、治疗触摸、磁力、自然疗法、吸盘、中医、反射疗法到催眠。CAMs被广泛使用(n = 166, 83%),第一是整骨疗法(n = 99, 49.5%),第二是顺势疗法(n = 78, 39.0%),最后是针灸疗法(n = 76, 38.0%)。无论何种CAM,满意度都很高(满意度中位数:61-81%)。CAMs主要用于预防/治疗抗癌治疗的副作用(治疗触摸为81.2%)、增加幸福感(自然疗法为55.4%)、改善免疫系统(顺势疗法为16.9%)和治疗癌症(n = 3,顺势疗法为5.1%)。患者可以很容易地考虑使用cam,因为高达50.8%的患者会接受咨询。结论:不同患者使用CAMs的原因不同。他们称赞CAMs,并不断要求获得更多信息,尽管文献中关于CAMs功效的证据有限。因此,需要前瞻性随机对照试验来探索CAMs在癌症患者中的安全性和有效性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Komplementärmedizin: Auch bei Umfragen muss die Methodik im Detail berichtet werden
Purpose: It is usual for cancer patients to use complementary and alternative medicines (CAMs) and yet the literature evaluating their efficacy in cancer patients is very limited. The objective of the present study was to report on the nature, frequency of use, and patient-reported outcome of CAMs in a single-center study. Methods: All the consecutive patients treated between November 2017 and June 2018 at the Lucien Neuwirth Cancer Institute (France) were screened. Their reasons for using CAMs and their usage habits were collected. Patients evaluated their benefit. Results: Of the 209 patients screened, 200 patients were included. CAMs ranged from osteopathy, homeopathy, acupuncture, healing touch, magnetism, naturopathy, suction cups, Chinese medicine, reflexology, to hypnosis. CAMs were widely used (n = 166, 83%), the first being osteopathy (n = 99, 49.5%), the second homeopathy (n = 78, 39.0%), and finally acupuncture (n = 76, 38.0%). Whatever the CAM, high satisfaction rates were reported (median satisfaction: 61-81%). CAMs were mainly used to prevent/treat side effects of anticancer treatments (81.2% for healing touch), increase well-being (55.4% for naturopathy), improve the immune system (16.9% for homeopathy), and treat cancer (n = 3, 5.1% for homeopathy). Patients could easily consider using CAMs, as up to 50.8% would have accepted a consultation. Conclusions: The reasons for using CAMs differed among patients. They praised CAMs and kept asking for more information although there is limited evidence about their efficacy in the literature. Thus, prospective randomized controlled trials exploring the safety and efficacy of CAMs in cancer patients are needed.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信