| Title |
Complementary and alternative therapeutic approaches in patients with early breast cancer: a systematic review
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Breast Cancer Research and Treatment, October 2005
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10549-005-9005-y |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
B. Gerber, C. Scholz, T. Reimer, V. Briese, W. Janni |
| Abstract |
Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) is becoming increasingly popular, particularly among patients with breast cancer. We have done a systematic review of studies published between 1995 and February 2005, identified through a comprehensive search. CAM encompasses a wide range of treatment modalities, including dietary and vitamin supplements, mind-body approaches, acupuncture, and herbal medicines. The objectives of CAM treatments are diverse: reduction of therapy-associated toxicity, improvement of cancer-related symptoms, fostering of the immune system and even direct anticancer effects. Clinical trials have generated few or no data on the efficacy of CAM, whether regarding disease recurrence, survival, overall quality of life or safety. Some CAM methods may even have adverse effects or reduce the efficacy of conventional treatment. The primary justification for CAM is based on empirical evidence, case studies, and hypothetical physiological effects. We conclude that available data on CAM modalities in the treatment of early-stage breast cancer does not support their application. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 113 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 2 | 2% |
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 110 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 17 | 15% |
| Researcher | 17 | 15% |
| Student > Master | 14 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 9 | 8% |
| Other | 7 | 6% |
| Other | 22 | 19% |
| Unknown | 27 | 24% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 27 | 24% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 12 | 11% |
| Psychology | 10 | 9% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 9 | 8% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 8 | 7% |
| Other | 17 | 15% |
| Unknown | 30 | 27% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 21. 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 10 January 2018.
All research outputs
#1,500,911
of 22,675,759 outputs
Outputs from Breast Cancer Research and Treatment
#192
of 4,617 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,289
of 60,387 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Breast Cancer Research and Treatment
#1
of 44 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,675,759 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 4,617 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its peers.
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 60,387 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 44 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.