Complementary and integrative medicine mention and recommendations: A systematic review and quality assessment of lung cancer clinical practice guidelines
| العنوان: | Complementary and integrative medicine mention and recommendations: A systematic review and quality assessment of lung cancer clinical practice guidelines |
|---|---|
| المؤلفون: | Zainib Nazir, Jeremy Y. Ng, Hayley Nault |
| المصدر: | Integrative Medicine Research Integrative Medicine Research, Vol 10, Iss 1, Pp 100452-(2021) |
| سنة النشر: | 2020 |
| مصطلحات موضوعية: | medicine.medical_specialty, 0211 other engineering and technologies, MEDLINE, Context (language use), 02 engineering and technology, CINAHL, Review Article, Rigour, 03 medical and health sciences, 0302 clinical medicine, 021105 building & construction, Medicine, Lung cancer, lcsh:Miscellaneous systems and treatments, Clinical practice guideline, business.industry, Cancer, lcsh:RZ409.7-999, medicine.disease, AGREE II, 030205 complementary & alternative medicine, Clinical Practice, Complementary and alternative medicine, Family medicine, Systematic review, Integrative medicine, business, Complementary and integrative medicine |
| الوصف: | Background Complementary and integrative medicine (CIM) use is widely sought by those diagnosed with cancer, with up to 50% of lung cancer patients seeking these therapies in the United States. The purpose of this study was to identify the quantity and assess the quality of CIM recommendations in clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for the treatment and/or management of lung cancer. Methods A systematic review was conducted to identify lung cancer CPGs. MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL were searched from 2008 to 2018, along with the Guidelines International Network and the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health websites. Eligible guidelines containing recommendations for the treatment and/or management of lung cancer were assessed with the Appraisal of Guidelines, Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) instrument. Results From 589 unique search results, 4 guidelines mentioned CIM, of which 3 guidelines made CIM recommendations. Scaled domain percentages from highest to lowest were: scope and purpose (82.4% overall, 76.9% CIM), clarity and presentation (96.3% overall, 63.0% CIM), editorial independence (61.1% overall, 61.1% CIM), rigour of development (62.5% overall, 54.9% CIM), stakeholder involvement (66.7% overall, 42.6% CIM) and applicability (29.9% overall, 18.8% CIM). Quality varied within and across guidelines. Conclusions Guidelines that scored well could serve as a framework for discussion between patients and healthcare professionals regarding use of CIM therapies in the context of lung cancer. Guidelines that scored lower could be improved according to the AGREE II instrument, with insight from other guidelines development resources. |
| تدمد: | 2213-4220 |
| URL الوصول: | https://explore.openaire.eu/search/publication?articleId=doi_dedup___::2917bd288e66e708e9232ceabd6885ff https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32904205 |
| حقوق: | OPEN |
| رقم الأكسشن: | edsair.doi.dedup.....2917bd288e66e708e9232ceabd6885ff |
| قاعدة البيانات: | OpenAIRE |
| تدمد: | 22134220 |
|---|