The DOI matches its Crossref record; 126 of the 126 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
How Many Cancer Patients Use Complementary and Alternative Medicine: A Systematic Review and Metaanalysis
Open accessAbstract
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.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Meta-analysis in clinical trials
DerSimonian, R., & Laird, N. (1986) · Controlled Clinical Trials · doi:10.1016/0197-2456(86)90046-2 · Cited by 39,552
Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta‐analysis
Higgins, J. P. T., & Thompson, S. G. (2002) · Statistics in Medicine · doi:10.1002/sim.1186 · Cited by 36,763
von Elm, E., Altman, D. G., Egger, M., Pocock, S. J., Gøtzsche, P. C., Vandenbroucke, J. P., & Initiative, F. T. S. (2007) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0040296 · Cited by 23,020
von Elm, E., Altman, D. G., Egger, M., Pocock, S. J., Gøtzsche, P. C., & Vandenbroucke, J. P. (2008) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.11.008 · Cited by 17,893
von Elm, E., Altman, D. G., Egger, M., Pocock, S. J., Gøtzsche, P. C., Vandenbroucke, J. P., & Initiative, F. T. S. (2007) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-147-8-200710160-00010 · Cited by 17,796
Eisenberg, D. M., Davis, R. B., Ettner, S. L., Appel, S., Wilkey, S., Van Rompay, M., & Kessler, R. C. (1998) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.280.18.1569 · Cited by 6,658
Losh-Hesselbart, S., & Fowler, F. J. (1985) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.2307/2288598 · Cited by 4,764
Sensitive questions in surveys.
Tourangeau, R., & Yan, T. (2007) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.133.5.859 · Cited by 3,057
Good practice in the conduct and reporting of survey research
KELLEY, K. (2003) · International Journal for Quality in Health Care · doi:10.1093/intqhc/mzg031 · Cited by 2,157
Fink, A. (2010) · International Encyclopedia of Education · doi:10.1016/b978-0-08-044894-7.00296-7 · Cited by 1,963
Cited by
ESPEN guidelines on nutrition in cancer patients
Arends, J., Bachmann, P., Baracos, V., Barthelemy, N., Bertz, H., Bozzetti, F., Fearon, K., Hütterer, E., Isenring, E., Kaasa, S., et al. (2017) · Clinical Nutrition · doi:10.1016/j.clnu.2016.07.015 · Cited by 3,114
ESPEN practical guideline: Clinical Nutrition in cancer
Muscaritoli, M., Arends, J., Bachmann, P., Baracos, V., Barthelemy, N., Bertz, H., Bozzetti, F., Hütterer, E., Isenring, E., Kaasa, S., et al. (2021) · Clinical Nutrition · doi:10.1016/j.clnu.2021.02.005 · Cited by 1,702
Lundt, A., & Jentschke, E. (2019) · Integrative Cancer Therapies · doi:10.1177/1534735418822096 · Cited by 92
Online survey of cancer patients on complementary and alternative medicine
Huebner, J., Prott, F. J., Micke, O., Muecke, R., Senf, B., Dennert, G., Muenstedt, K., & on behalf of PRIO (Working Group Prevention and Integrative Oncology - German Cancer Society) (2014) · Oncology Research and Treatment · doi:10.1159/000362616 · Cited by 75
Liang, J., Hänsch, G. M., Hübner, K., & Samstag, Y. (2019) · Advances in Biological Regulation · doi:10.1016/j.jbior.2018.11.006 · Cited by 72
Metadata
- Authors
- Horneber, M., Bueschel, G., Dennert, G., Less, D., Ritter, E., & Zwahlen, M.
- Venue
- Integrative Cancer Therapies
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2011-10-21
- Volume
- 11
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 187-203
- ISSN
- 1534-7354 (ISSN-L)
- 1552-695X
- OpenAlex
- W2132249180
- Cited by
- 718
- References
- 126
- FWCI
- 63.76
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: How Many Cancer Patients Use Complementary and Alternative Medicine: A Systematic Review and Metaanalysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/1534735411423920
- The paper
- Horneber, M., Bueschel, G., Dennert, G., Less, D., Ritter, E., & Zwahlen, M. (2012). How Many Cancer Patients Use Complementary and Alternative Medicine: A Systematic Review and Metaanalysis. Integrative Cancer Therapies. https://doi.org/10.1177/1534735411423920
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
