有多少癌症患者使用补充和替代医学:系统评价和荟萃分析。
How many cancer patients use complementary and alternative medicine: a systematic review and metaanalysis.
机构信息
Department of Internal Medicine, Division ofOncology/Hematology, Klinikum Nuernberg, Nuernberg, Germany.
出版信息
Integr Cancer Ther. 2012 Sep;11(3):187-203. doi: 10.1177/1534735411423920. Epub 2011 Oct 21.
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.
背景
自 1998 年以来,尚无关于癌症患者使用补充和替代医学(CAM)频率的全面系统评价。
方法
检索了 MEDLINE、AMED 和 Embase 数据库,以获取截至 2009 年 1 月发表的调查。纳入了在澳大利亚、加拿大、欧洲、新西兰和美国进行的至少有 100 名成年癌症患者的调查。由 2 位审阅者独立提取方法和结果的详细信息。使用根据 STROBE 指南制定的标准清单评估方法学质量。应用探索性随机效应荟萃分析和荟萃回归。
结果
纳入了来自 18 个国家(152 项;>65000 名癌症患者)的研究。CAM 使用的异质性很高,在某种程度上可以用调查方法的差异来解释。所有研究中“当前使用”CAM 的综合患病率为 40%。最高的是在美国,最低的是在意大利和荷兰。荟萃分析表明,CAM 的使用率从 20 世纪 70 年代和 80 年代的估计 25%增加到 90 年代的 32%以上,到 2000 年以后增加到 49%。
结论
发现的 CAM 使用总体患病率低于通常声称的水平。但是,有一些证据表明,近年来使用率有了相当大的提高。因此,医疗保健系统应该制定明确的策略来应对这一问题。为了提高未来调查的有效性和报告质量,作者建议应满足的方法学质量标准和应要求的报告标准。