| Title |
Acupuncture for Symptom Management in Cancer Care: an Update
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Current Oncology Reports, October 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11912-014-0418-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
M. Kay Garcia, Jennifer McQuade, Richard Lee, Robin Haddad, Michael Spano, Lorenzo Cohen |
| Abstract |
In a previous systematic review of the worldwide literature of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving needle insertion into acupuncture points for symptom management in cancer patients, we identified only one high-quality RCT that was deemed to have a low risk of bias. Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane (all databases), Scopus, and PubMed were searched from inception through December 2011 with no language limits applied. A total of 41 RCTs met all inclusion criteria and were rated. In the current review, we examined 18 trials published since our last report. The purpose of this update was to emphasize important recent findings and discuss how concerns such as blinding, separating non-specific placebo effects from specific needling effects, determining biologic mechanisms and dosing parameters, evaluating determinants of response such as expectation, controlling for sources of bias, and the lack of standardization in treatment and study methods may affect the interpretation of study results. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 61 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Italy | 1 | 2% |
| Brazil | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 59 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 13 | 21% |
| Other | 7 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 6 | 10% |
| Researcher | 5 | 8% |
| Librarian | 4 | 7% |
| Other | 14 | 23% |
| Unknown | 12 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 28 | 46% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 8% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 4 | 7% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 5% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 5 | 8% |
| Unknown | 14 | 23% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 22 January 2015.
All research outputs
#20,264,045
of 22,794,367 outputs
Outputs from Current Oncology Reports
#755
of 880 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#215,806
of 258,613 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Current Oncology Reports
#4
of 6 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,794,367 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 880 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.8. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 258,613 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 6 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.