Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 1,022

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Complementary/Alternative Medicine Use in a Comprehensive Cancer Center and the Implications for Oncology

Richardson, Mary Ann, Sanders, Tina, Palmer, J. Lynn, Greisinger, Anthony, Singletary, S. Eva·2000·Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract

PURPOSE: Oncologists are aware that their patients use complementary/alternative medicine (CAM). As cancer incidence rates and survival time increase, use of CAM will likely increase. This study assessed the prevalence and predictors of CAM use in a comprehensive cancer center. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Subjects were English-speaking cancer patients at least 18 years of age, attending one of eight outpatient clinics at The University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, between December 1997 and June 1998. After giving written informed consent, participants completed a self-administered questionnaire. Differences between CAM users and nonusers were assessed by χ 2 and univariate logistic regression analysis. A multivariate logistic regression model identified the simultaneous impact of demographic, clinical, and treatment variables on CAM use; P values were two-sided. RESULTS: Of the 453 participants (response rate, 51.4%), 99.3% had heard of CAM. Of those, 83.3% had used at least one CAM approach. Use was greatest for spiritual practices (80.5%), vitamins and herbs (62.6%), and movement and physical therapies (59.2%) and predicted (P < .001) by sex (female), younger age, indigent pay status, and surgery. After excluding spiritual practices and psychotherapy, 95.8% of participants were aware of CAM and 68.7% of those had used CAM. Use was predicted (P < .0001) by sex (female), education, and chemotherapy. CONCLUSION: In most categories, CAM use was common among outpatients. Given the number of patients combining vitamins and herbs with conventional treatments, the oncology community must improve patient-provider communication, offer reliable information to patients, and initiate research to determine possible drug-herb-vitamin interactions.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1200/jco.2000.18.13.2505

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 3 references

Cited by

See all 1,022

Metadata

Authors
Richardson, M. A., Sanders, T., Palmer, J. L., Greisinger, A., & Singletary, S. E.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Oncology
Published
2000-07-01
Volume
18
Issue
13
Pages
2505-2514
ISSN
  • 0732-183X (ISSN-L)
  • 1527-7755
OpenAlex
W1902141597
Cited by
1,022
References
3
FWCI
70.28
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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: Complementary/Alternative Medicine Use in a Comprehensive Cancer Center and the Implications for Oncology. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1200/jco.2000.18.13.2505
The paper
Richardson, M. A., Sanders, T., Palmer, J. L., Greisinger, A., & Singletary, S. E. (2000). Complementary/Alternative Medicine Use in a Comprehensive Cancer Center and the Implications for Oncology. Journal of Clinical Oncology. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2000.18.13.2505

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.