Statement to an Insufficient Systematic Review on L. Therapy.

Simple item page
dc.contributor.authorMatthes, Harald
dc.contributor.authorThronicke, Anja
dc.contributor.authorHofheinz, Ralf
dc.contributor.authorBaars, Erik W.
dc.contributor.authorMartin, David
dc.contributor.authorHuber, Roman
dc.contributor.authorBreitkreuz, Thomas
dc.contributor.authorBar-Sela, Gil
dc.contributor.authorGalun, Daniel
dc.contributor.authorSchad, Friedemann
dc.date.accessioned2025-02-08T18:45:40Z
dc.date.available2025-02-08T18:45:40Z
dc.date.issued2020
dc.description.abstractBackground: Up to 88% of oncological patients apply complementary therapies and up to 77% apply complementary mistletoe therapy in the context of integrative oncological approaches. An evidence-based consultation of oncological health professionals regarding complementary therapies used in Germany is missing. Therefore, a new S3-Guideline for Complementary Medicine in the Treatment of Oncological Patients is under development and is anticipated to be finalized in November 2020. It will be based on evidence-based publications and systematic reviews on complementary therapies in oncology. A recently published two-part systematic review on mistletoe treatment in oncology has been reevaluated. Methods: The latest published systematic two-part review on mistletoe has been systematically proofread and checked in compliance with the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Intervention and the AMSTAR 2 (A MeaSurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews) tool. Results: The here discussed two-part review is incomplete, lacks sound accuracy including insufficient assessment of the risk of bias, and contains imprecise statements. In addition, it does not sufficiently comply with the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Intervention and the AMSTAR 2 tool. Conclusion: In view of the approaching release of a new guideline in the field of complementary therapies in oncology, the present statement draws attention to a lack of profound methodology of conductance of a recently released systematic review on mistletoe. In consequence, a comprehensive overview of published mistletoe studies, i.e., a meta-analysis with a sound methodology of conductance, is necessary.
dc.identifier.citationMatthes, H., Thronicke, A., Hofheinz, R.-D., Baars, E., Martin, D., Huber, R., Breitkreuz, T., Bar-Sela, G., Galun, D., & Schad, F. (2020). Statement to an Insufficient Systematic Review on Viscum album L. Therapy. Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine, 2020(1), 7091039. https://doi.org/10.1155/2020/7091039
dc.identifier.doihttps://doi.org/10.1155/2020/7091039
dc.identifier.issn1741-4288
dc.identifier.orcidhttps://orcid.org/0000-0002-4053-4379
dc.identifier.other32148549
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14430/765
dc.language.isoen
dc.subjectIntegrative oncology
dc.subjectMistletoe
dc.subjectSystematic review
dc.subjectScientific bias
dc.subjectMethodology
dc.titleStatement to an Insufficient Systematic Review on L. Therapy.
dc.typejournal article
dspace.entity.typePublication
oaire.citation.titleEvidence-Based Comp Alt Med - eCAM
Files
Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Thumbnail Image
Name:
Matthes et al_Statement to an Insufficient Systematic Review on_2020.pdf
Size:
785.12 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Download
Collections
01 Anthroposophic medicine (AM), therapies and health