Traditional Chinese Medicine in Cancer Care: An Overview of 5834 Randomized Controlled Trials Published in Chinese.

BACKGROUND: Traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) is widely integrated into cancer care in China. An overview in 2011 identified 2384 randomized and non-randomized controlled trials (RCTs, non-RCTs) on TCM for cancer published in the Chinese literature. This article summarizes updated evidence of RCTs on TCM for cancer care. METHODS: We searched 4 main Chinese databases: China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Chinese Scientific Journal Database, SinoMed, and Wanfang. RCTs on TCM used in cancer care were analyzed in this bibliometric study. RESULTS: Of 5834 RCTs (477 157 cancer patients), only 62 RCTs were indexed in MEDLINE. The top 3 cancers treated were lung, stomach, and breast cancer. About 4752 RCTs (81.45%) tested TCM combined with conventional treatment, and 1082 RCTs (18.55%) used TCM alone for treating symptoms and side-effects. Herbal medicine was the most frequently used TCM modality (5087 RCTs; 87.20%). The most frequently reported outcome was symptom improvement (3712 RCTs; 63.63%) followed by quality of life (2725 RCTs; 46.71%), and biomarkers (2384 RCTs; 40.86%). The majority of RCTs (4051; 69.44%) concluded there were beneficial effects using either TCM alone or TCM plus conventional treatment compared with conventional treatment. CONCLUSION: Substantial randomized trials demonstrated different types/stages of cancer were treated by various TCM modalities, alone or in combination with conventional medicine. Further evaluation on the effects and safety of TCM modalities focusing on outcomes such as quality of life is required.

Self-care for anxiety and depression: a comparison of evidence from Cochrane reviews and practice to inform decision-making and priority-setting.

BACKGROUND: Self-care refers to a range of activities and approaches undertaken by an individual to maintain health and manage ill-health which may include various complementary or alternative approaches. The purpose of this study was to identify the self-care approaches used by the general public for depression and anxiety, assess the usefulness of Cochrane reviews for informing decisions on self-care and highlight any gaps in the evidence. METHODS: Searches were carried out for surveys of self-care for anxiety and/or depression and for Cochrane reviews and protocols of interventions with potential for use in self-care. Data was extracted from each review and Plain Language Summaries assessed for content, consistency and readability. Interventions reported in surveys and in Cochrane reviews were compared and effectiveness of each assessed. RESULTS: Surveys from 10 countries reported a variety of self-care interventions, 17 of which appeared in 2 or more surveys and which included dietary supplements, herbal medicines, mind-body therapies and various forms of exercise. Twenty-two reviews and 5 protocols on potential self-care interventions were identified, the majority in depression. Twelve interventions were judged effective or promising, most with small effect sizes. Readability of summaries was highly variable: half were written at college/university level. Several commonly used approaches were not covered by Cochrane reviews. CONCLUSIONS: This study has revealed the interventions currently used by the general public which are judged effective or promising based on Cochrane reviews. Some disparity is highlighted between interventions used in practice and the availability of reliable evidence, and in the presentation of effectiveness and safety. Being able to direct patients to reliable, accessible information is a positive step in ensuring effective patient-centered, evidence-informed care. Addressing gaps, ensuring consistency and increasing usability of evidence intended for the general public will support this goal.