MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2004895974 · doi:10.1002/pbc.21400

Complementary and alternative medicines, dietary manipulation and vitamin supplementation

2007· article· en· W2004895974 sur OpenAlexaff
Ronald D. Barr

Notice bibliographique

RevuePediatric Blood & Cancer · 2007
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueComplementary and Alternative Medicine Studies
Établissements canadiensMcMaster UniversityMcMaster Children's Hospital
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicinePsychological interventionContext (archaeology)MucositisIntensive care medicineClinical trialAlternative medicineCancerQuality of life (healthcare)Health careFamily medicineRadiation therapyPsychiatryNursingSurgeryInternal medicinePathology

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Complementary and alternative medical (CAM) therapies are an extremely heterogeneous group of interventions that fall outside of the practices of conventional health care providers. Kara Kelly, in her review of the literature, noted that almost 1/3 of patients with cancer reported using CAM and the prevalence may be as high as 90% in some instances in children with cancer. The National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine in the US categorizes CAM into five groups. Nutritional interventions fall into the category of biologic therapies. Use of CAM nutritional interventions in children with cancer can be particularly problematic; challenging for children and their health care providers, risking compromised adherence to and even interference with conventional therapy. Biological variability and contamination of dietary supplements pose additional hazards. It is clearly important to establish trusting relationships with families so that open communication on the use of CAM can occur. Discussions on the quality of the evidence pertaining to safety and efficacy are essential. Cleary there are opportunities for definitive studies in the context of conventional clinical research. Examples include the use of antioxidants to limit toxicity, especially in the setting of hematopoietic stem cell transplantation in which the therapy is associated with depletion of anti-oxidant status. This setting also provides useful “testing ground” for clinical trials of other forms of CAM, especially those aimed at reducing mucositis and those claimed to provide nutritional benefits. CAM interventions are likely to have their most important role in supporting children through conventional chemotherapy and radiation therapy, especially for ameliorating toxicities for which there are insufficient conventional options. It is acknowledged that the use of CAM therapies empowers families in the care of their children with cancer. Working in concert with patient advocates and CAM practitioners is a constructive way forward in the necessary formal evaluation of the safety and efficacy of these products. Sheila Weitzman gave a comprehensive account of dietary “therapies” for cancer. It is clear that the incidence of some cancers in adults is affected by dietary components and that the lower incidences of these diseases in some parts of the world as compared to others can be attributed, at least in part, to different common dietary habits. Such observations have led to the nutritional guidelines of the American Cancer Society for cancer prevention. Claims that manipulation of the diet can cure malignant disease, however, remain unsupported by convincing evidence. Furthermore, many of these putative curative interventions are intolerable for children and some are frankly harmful. For the child with cancer, the focus of conventional supportive care should be on the provision of a well-balanced diet that meets the nutritional needs of the growing individual, with supplementation as required. In view of the 80% cure rate of childhood cancer today, it is important that nothing is given to the child which will interfere with the utilization and the efficacy of conventional therapy. Recognizing the widespread use of CAM, it is important for the practitioner to have an open dialogue with each family to ensure that there are no hidden agendas being pursued and that the reasonable use of non-harmful dietary interventions is supported. This approach may lead to indirect benefits such as the well-described placebo effect and an enhanced involvement of family members in the child's care. Such circumstances are worthy of further study. Ingrid Goh addressed the challenging issue of prenatal multi-vitamin supplementation and the occurrence of cancer in offspring. The rationale behind this area of research stems from the evidence in favor of a reduction in certain congenital anomalies associated with such supplementation. The evidence in support of cancer prevention is less clear. For example, some case-control studies suggest a significant protective effect with respect to brain tumors in children, while others do not. The complexity of interpretation is augmented in the recognition that supplements were in the form of multi-vitamins of varying compositions and the effect may vary with the timing of utilization during pregnancy. The balance of evidence in the case of acute lymphoblastic leukemia is in favor of a protective effect, perhaps attributable specifically to anti-oxidant components contained within these supplements, such as folic acid, vitamin C and vitamin E. A similar conclusion could be reached in the cases of neuroblastoma and retinoblastoma. The prospect of undertaking prospective, randomized studies is small. As the risks of judicious multi-vitamin supplementation in pregnancy are minimal the best practice is to encourage women to supplement with pre-natal multi-vitamins prior to and throughout pregnancy.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Synthèse · Signal consensuel: Synthèse
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,007
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,025

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,004
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0020,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,001
Communication savante0,0020,002
Science ouverte0,0010,002
Intégrité de la recherche0,0020,002
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0070,001

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,040
Tête enseignante GPT0,348
Écart entre enseignants0,308 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreSynthèse

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2007
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revuePediatric Blood & CancerMême sujetComplementary and Alternative Medicine StudiesTravaux en français237 207