Statement to an insufficient systematic review on viscum album L. therapy

• Verfasst von: Matthes, Harald [VerfasserIn]
• Verfasst von: Thronicke, Anja [VerfasserIn]
• Verfasst von: Hofheinz, Ralf-Dieter [VerfasserIn]
• Verfasst von: Baars, Erik [VerfasserIn]
• Verfasst von: Martin, David [VerfasserIn]
• Verfasst von: Huber, Roman [VerfasserIn]
• Verfasst von: Breitkreuz, Thomas [VerfasserIn]
• Verfasst von: Bar-Sela, Gil [VerfasserIn]
• Verfasst von: Galun, Daniel [VerfasserIn]
• Verfasst von: Schad, Friedemann [VerfasserIn]
• Titel: Statement to an insufficient systematic review on viscum album L. therapy
• Verf.angabe: Harald Matthes, Anja Thronicke, Ralf-Dieter Hofheinz, Erik Baars, David Martin, Roman Huber, Thomas Breitkreuz, Gil Bar-Sela, Daniel Galun and Friedemann Schad
• E-Jahr: 2020
• Jahr: 18 Feb 2020
• Umfang: 9 S.
• Fussnoten: Gesehen am 28.10.2020
• Titel Quelle: Enthalten in: Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine
• Ort Quelle: New York, NY : Hindawi, 2004
• Jahr Quelle: 2020
• Band/Heft Quelle: 9(2020) Artikel-Nummer ID 7091039, 9 Seiten
• ISSN Quelle: 1741-4288
• DOI: doi:10.1155/2020/7091039
• Datenträger: Online-Ressource
• Sprache: eng
• K10plus-PPN: 1736869930

Abstract

Background. 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.