4.6 Review

Mistletoe in oncological treatment: a systematic review: Part2: quality of life and toxicity of cancer treatment

期刊

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00432-018-02838-3

关键词

Mistletoe; Cancer; Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM); Patient-relevant outcomes

类别

资金

  1. German Guideline S3 Leitlinie Komplementarmedizin in der Behandlung von onkologischen PatientInnen [032-055OL]
  2. German Cancer Aid within the German Guideline Program in Oncology [11583]
  3. working group Prevention and Integrative Oncology of the German Cancer Society

向作者/读者索取更多资源

PurposeOne important goal of any cancer therapy is to improve or maintain quality of life. In this context, mistletoe treatment is discussed to be highly controversial. The aim of this systematic review is to give an extensive overview about the current state of evidence concerning mistletoe therapy of oncologic patients regarding quality of life and side effects of cancer treatments.MethodsIn September and October 2017, Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PsycINFO, CINAHL and Science Citation Index Expanded (Web of Science) were systematically searched.ResultsThe search strategy identified 3647 articles and 28 publications with 2639 patients were finally included in this review. Mistletoe was used in bladder cancer, breast cancer, other gynecological cancers (cervical cancer, corpus uteri cancer, and ovarian cancer), colorectal cancer, other gastrointestinal cancer (gastric cancer and pancreatic cancer), glioma, head and neck cancer, lung cancer, melanoma and osteosarcoma. In nearly all studies, mistletoe was added to a conventional therapy. Regarding quality of life, 17 publications reported results. Studies with better methodological quality show less or no effects on quality of life.ConclusionsWith respect to quality of life or reduction of treatment-associated side effects, a thorough review of the literature does not provide any indication to prescribe mistletoe to patients with cancer.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据