Systematic assessment of the influence of quality of studies on mistletoe in cancer care on the results of a meta-analysis on overall survival.

PURPOSE: Mistletoe treatment in cancer patients is controversial, and a Cochrane review concluded that due to heterogeneity, performing a meta-analysis was not suitable. However, several systematic reviews included meta-analyses in favor of mistletoe. The aim of this work was to assess the influence of the methodological quality of controlled studies on the results of a meta-analysis regarding overall survival. METHODS: Between April and August 2022, Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PsycINFO, CINAHL and Web of Science were systematically searched. In addition, reference lists of previously published meta-analyses were checked for relevant publications. A random effects meta-analysis with clustering was performed. The risk of bias within the studies was assessed using ROB 2.0 and ROBINS-I. RESULTS: The search identified 4685 hits, and 28 publications reporting on 28 298 patients were included in the quantitative analysis. Overall, the analysis led to a significant result in favor of mistletoe therapy (overall HR = 0.61 with 95% CI [0.53;0.7]). According to our subgroup analysis of randomized studies, studies of higher quality (lower risk of bias) did not lead to a significant result in favor of mistletoe therapy (HR = 0.78; CI = [0.30; 2.00]). CONCLUSIONS: In the case of mistletoe therapy, the results of the meta-analysis strongly depended on the methodological quality of the included studies. Calculating meta-analyses that include low-quality studies may lead to severe misinterpretation of the data.

Development and analysis of quality assessment tools for different types of patient information - websites, decision aids, question prompt lists, and videos.

OBJECTIVE: Our working group has developed a set of quality assessment tools for different types of patient information material. In this paper we review and evaluate these tools and their development process over the past eight years. METHODS: We compared the content and structure of quality assessment tools for websites, patient decision aids (PDAs), question prompt lists (QPLs), and videos. Using data from their various applications, we calculated inter-rater concordance using Kendall's W. RESULTS: The assessment tools differ in content, structure and length, but many core aspects remained throughout the development over time. We found a relatively large variance regarding the amount of quality aspects combined into one item, which may influence the weighting of those aspects in the final scores of evaluated material. Inter-rater concordance was good in almost all applications of the tool. Subgroups of similar expertise showed higher concordance rates than the overall agreement. CONCLUSION: All four assessment tools are ready to be used by people of different expertise. However, varying expertise may lead to some differences in the resulting assessments when using the tools. The lay and patient perspective needs to be further explored and taken into close consideration when refining the instruments.

Recommendations on complementary and alternative medicine within S3 guidelines in oncology: systematic quality assessment of underlying methodology.

PURPOSE: Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) is used by about half of all patients with cancer. Guidelines are an important tool to introduce evidence-based medicine into routine cancer care. The aim of our study was to assess methodology of the statements and recommendations concerning CAM. METHODS: A systematic assessment of all S3 guidelines published until November 2018 was done. Methodology of all statements and recommendations concerning CAM which were declared as evidence-based was evaluated with respect to international standards. According to the AMSTAR-2 instrument search strategy including filters, searched databases, restrictions to the research question and description of the included studies were examined. In case of adaptations from other guidelines, all underlying guidelines were examined as well. RESULTS: After examining 212 guidelines, 82 evidence-based statements and recommendations regarding CAM could be identified. Four were derived by adaptation, 78 by a de-novo search. Only 11 of 78 (14%) fulfilled all assessment criteria. In 18 (19%) cases no information on search strategy was attainable in any document affiliated to the guideline, in 35 (45%) cases information on search strategy was superficial and in 54 (78%) cases the referred evidence was not presented in adequate detail. CONCLUSIONS: Concerning CAM statements and recommendations within S3 guidelines quality of evidence processing has several shortcomings. Guideline adaptions often lack transparency and traceability.

Cancer patients' needs for virtues and physicians' characteristics in physician-patient communication: a survey among patient representatives.

BACKGROUND: Data on patients' needs with respect to physicians' ethical behavior and virtues are important but not available in most cases. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In an iterative process together with patients' representatives, we developed a standardized questionnaire which was distributed to the representatives of the Women's Self-Help after Cancer in Germany. We started with the classical ethical virtues and clustered them to characteristics. The patients' representatives were asked to rate in different communications settings. RESULTS: One hundred eighty-six patients' representatives took part in the survey. For four communication situations (first communication on symptoms, diagnosis of cancer, choice of therapy, doubts on therapy), competence was rated as very important by 80-89% and as important by 6-7%; honesty as very important by 78-89% and as important by 5-12%; respect as very important by 66-71% and as important by 19-21%; and patience as very important by 55-68% and as important by 6-24%. Compassion was rated as less important, with only 24-31% rating it as very important and another 26-32% as important. Additional desires expressed by the participants were physicians having more time (9.1%) and a better relationship between physician and patient (7.0%). CONCLUSION: Competence, honesty, respect, and patience are important characteristics which should be focused on in communication training of medical students and physicians. In spite of compassion being rated as less important, training on compassion/empathy might help doctors to improve coping with the continuous confrontation with complications, progress, suffering, and death of their patients.

Information needs and usage of complementary and alternative medicine in members of a German self-help group for gastrointestinal stroma tumours, sarcoma, and renal cancer.

OBJECTIVE: 40-50% of German cancer patients use some method of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) and both patients and doctors often feel insufficiently informed. We examined the information-seeking behaviour and satisfaction with information on patients' interest in CAM and the therapy decision. DESIGN AND SETTING: An anonymous, voluntary online survey was conducted among the members of "Das Lebenshaus e.V." (House of Life), a decentralized support group for patients with gastrointestinal stroma tumours (GIST), sarcoma, and renal cancer. Data was collected from March 2015 until January 2016 using closed questions with multiple choice if appropriate and in case of ranking, a 5-point Likert scale. INTERVENTIONS: None. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Correlations between CAM interest, usage, information needs, sources of information and therapy decision were calculated using chi square tests for univariate analyses. RESULTS: Overall, 431 patients took part in our survey, thus return rate was 19.6%. 43.9% (n = 189) of the participants were female, 37.1% (n = 160) were male, 19.0% (n = 82) did not respond. Mean age was 59.8 years. The most common tumours were GIST (346%, n = 149), renal cancer (22.3%, n = 96) and sarcoma (20.0%, n = 86). 55.2% (n = 138) of the respondents were patients undergoing treatment, 19.7% (n = 85) were after treatment, 2.6% (n = 11) were relatives and 4.4% (n = 19) others while 18.1% (n = 78) did not respond. A total of 81.8% (n = 337) of the participants were interested in CAM, but only 44.7% (n = 152) used one of the methods. Women were more commonly interested in CAM (87.2%, n = 163) and used it more often: 53.0% (n = 97) vs. 36.2% (n = 55). Information about CAM was considered important by 85.5% (n = 360) and the Internet was the most commonly used source for information about CAM (77.9%, n = 205). However, 61.4% (n = 233) were not satisfied with the information received about CAM, especially from doctors and hospitals. Patients unsatisfied with the information they had formally received about the course of their disease significantly more often used CAM (p = 0.029). Users would also make the therapy decision by themselves more often (p = 0.036). Nearly a fifth did not disclose their use to a doctor. CONCLUSIONS: Dissatisfaction with received information reveals a strong need for scientific information to be available to both patients and doctors. Physicians should get special training about CAM. As the Internet is an important source, high-quality and scientific information should be portrayed on webpages easily accessible to patients.

Evaluation of the Quality of Online Information for Patients with Rare Cancers: Thyroid Cancer.

The Internet offers an easy and quick access to a vast amount of patient information. However, several studies point to the poor quality of many websites and the resulting hazards of false information. The aim of this study was to assess quality of information on thyroid cancer. A patients' search for information about thyroid cancer on German websites was simulated using the search engine Google and the patient portal "Patienten-Information.de". The websites were assessed using a standardized instrument with formal and content aspects from the German Cancer Society. Supporting the results of prior studies that analysed patient information on the Internet, the data showed that the quality of patient information on thyroid cancer is highly heterogeneous depending on the website providers. The majority of website providers are represented by media and health providers other than health insurances, practices and professionals offering patient information of relatively poor quality. Moreover, most websites offer patient information of low-quality content. Only a few trustworthy, high-quality websites exist. Especially Google, a common search engine, focuses more on the dissemination of information than on quality aspects. In order to improve the patient information from the Internet, the visibility of high-quality websites must be improved. For that, education programs to improve patients' eHealth literacy are needed. A quick and easy evaluation tool for online information suited for patients should be implemented, and patients should be taught to integrate such a tool into their research process.

Economic Evaluation of Complementary and Alternative Medicine in Oncology: Is There a Difference Compared to Conventional Medicine?

OBJECTIVE: To analyze the financial burden of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) in cancer treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Based on a systematic search of the literature (Medline and the Cochrane Library, combining the MeSH terms 'complementary therapies', 'neoplasms', 'costs', 'cost analysis', and 'cost-benefit analysis'), an expert panel discussed different types of analyses and their significance for CAM in oncology. RESULTS: Of 755 publications, 43 met our criteria. The types of economic analyses and their parameters discussed for CAM in oncology were cost, cost-benefit, cost-effectiveness, and cost-utility analyses. Only a few articles included arguments in favor of or against these different methods, and only a few arguments were specific for CAM because most CAM methods address a broad range of treatment aim parameters to assess effectiveness and are hard to define. Additionally, the choice of comparative treatments is difficult. To evaluate utility, healthy subjects may not be adequate as patients with a life-threatening disease and may be judged differently, especially with respect to a holistic treatment approach. We did not find any arguments in the literature that were directed at the economic analysis of CAM in oncology. Therefore, a comprehensive approach assessment based on criteria from evidence-based medicine evaluating direct and indirect costs is recommended. CONCLUSION: The usual approaches to conventional medicine to assess costs, benefits, and effectiveness seem adequate in the field of CAM in oncology. Additionally, a thorough deliberation on the comparator, endpoints, and instruments is mandatory for designing studies.