4.6 Article

Sipjeondaebo-tang in patients with breast cancer with fatigue: a protocol for a pilot, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, cross-over trial

期刊

BMJ OPEN
卷 8, 期 7, 页码 -

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-021242

关键词

herbal medicine; breast tumours; clinical trials; complementary medicine

资金

  1. Korea Health Technology R&D Project through the Korea Health Industry Development Institute (KHIDI) - Ministry of Health & Welfare, Republic of Korea [HI12C1889]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction Cancer-related fatigue is a frequent symptom in patients with cancer and one of the most distressing symptoms in patients with breast cancer. Sipjeondaebo-tang (Juzen-taiho-to in Japanese or Shi-Quan-Da-Bu-Tang in Chinese) is a widely used herbal medicine for the treatment of fatigue in Korea, China and Japan. The purpose of the present study is to evaluate the feasibility of Sipjeondaebo-tang for cancer-related fatigue. Methods and analysis The present study is a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, cross-over study. Forty-eight patients with breast cancer who are indicated for doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide will be recruited. The participants will receive 3 g of Sipjeondaebo-tang or a placebo three times a day for 56 days. The primary outcome measurement is the change in the Brief Fatigue Inventory scores. The secondary outcome measurements include the changes in the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) of fatigue, and quality of life measured by the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer-QLQ-C30 and QLQ-BR23. VAS of fatigue will be measured on every visit, and other outcomes will be measured on visits 2, 4, 6 and 7. The total study period is 14 weeks. Ethics and dissemination This study has been approved by the Institutional Review Board of the Catholic Kwandong University International St Mary's Hospital (reference IS16MNSI0011). The results of this study will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at a scientific conference.

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