Evidence-based Assessment of Complementary and Alternative Therapies for Cancer

Article information

J Korean Med Assoc. 2008;51(5):403-410

Publication date (electronic) : 2008 May 31

doi : https://doi.org/10.5124/jkma.2008.51.5.403

Department of Family Medicine, Hallym University College of Medicine, Korea. hallymfm@gmail.com

Abstract

Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) is a group of diverse medical and health care systems, practices, and products that are not currently considered to be the parts of conventional medicine. Many patients suffering from cancer use CAM therapies. Physicians, patients, and policy makers need information on current evidence on the efficacy and safety of selected CAM therapies that are commonly used by patients with cancer. The commonly used CAM therapies among cancer patients were assessed by systematic reviews of surveys on Korean cancer patients' use of CAM. A total of 82 CAM interventions were selected for assessment of the effectiveness and safety. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Korean database (KoreaMed, KMbase), Japan and China database in most sensitive modes. We adopted methodologies of classification of study design, study quality assessment, and determination of evidence levels from Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) and National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE). Safety of each CAM intervention was assessed according to the level of risk grading. External reviews were done by multidisciplinary experts.

Keywords: Complementary and alternative medicine; Assessment; Evidence-based medicine; Methodology

Notes

This study was supported by a grant from the National R & D Program for Cancer Control, Ministry of Health & Welfare, Republic of Korea(0720590).

References

1. The Use of Complementary and Alternative Medicine in the United States. National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM) Available from: http://nccam.nih.gov/news/camsurvey_fs1.htm.

2. Korean Academy of Medical Sciences. Development for complementary and alternative therapies assessment methodology and its application 2005.

3. Eisenberg DM, Davis RB, Ettner SL, Appel S, Wilkey S, Van Rompay M, Kessler RC. Trends in alternative medicine use in the United States, 1990-1997: results of a follow-up national survey. JAMA 1998. 2801569–1575.

4. Tascilar M, de Jong FA, Verweij J, Mathijssen RH. Complementary and alternative medicine during cancer treatment: beyond innocence. Oncologist 2006. 11732–741.

5. Ernst E, Cassileth BR. The prevalence of complementary/alternative medicine in cancer: a systematic review. Cancer 1998. 83777–782.

6. Atkins D, Best D, Briss PA, Eccles M, Falck-Ytter Y, Flottorp S, Guyatt GH, Harbour RT, Haugh MC, Henry D, Hill S, Jaeschke R, Leng G, Liberati A, Magrini N, Mason J, Middleton P, Mrukowicz J, O'Connell D, Oxman AD, Phillips B, Schü-nemann HJ, Edejer TT, Varonen H, Vist GE, Williams JW Jr, Zaza S. GRADE Working Group. Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ 2004. 3281490.

7. Public health guidance process and method guides. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) Available from http://www.nice.org.uk/aboutnice/howwework/developingnicepublichealthguidance/publichealthguidanceprocessandmethodguides/public_health_guidance_process_and_method_guides.jsp.

8. Systems to Rate the Strength Of Scientific Evidence. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Available from http://www.thecre.com/pdf/ahrq-system-strength.pdf.

9. Slim K, Nini E, Forestier D, Kwiatkowski F, Panis Y, Chipponi J. Methodological index for non-randomized studies (minors): development and validation of a new instrument. ANZ J Surg 2003. 73712–716.