ArticleBiomolecules & biomedicine2025
Complementary therapies in early breast cancer: Oncologists' evidence-based decisions in a Southeast European vignette survey.
Article in Biomolecules & biomedicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Complementary therapies are increasingly integrated into the framework of integrative oncology. While numerous complementary therapies provide potential benefits, some may also carry risks, including interactions with conventional cancer treatments. The degree to which oncologists' real-world decisions regarding complementary therapies align with evidence-based guidelines remains uncertain. This study aimed to evaluate oncologists' evidence-based decisions on whether specific complementary therapies should be prohibited, permitted, or recommended for early breast cancer treatment. We conducted a cross-sectional online survey that included a randomized vignette experiment involving oncology specialists and residents from seven Southeast European countries. The primary outcome was the percentage of accurate classifications of 28 therapy-indication pairs in neoadjuvant and adjuvant settings, benchmarked against published evidence. Correctness was assessed using both a strict definition (one correct option) and an expanded definition (accepting "allow" or "recommend" when supported by evidence). A total of 136 respondents met the inclusion criteria and provided paired responses. Median accuracy was found to be 52% (95% CI 48-55) under the strict definition and 70% (95% CI 67-72) under the expanded definition, with no significant differences observed between neoadjuvant and adjuvant settings. Evidence-based therapies, such as physical exercise and cognitive behavioral therapy, were most frequently recommended, whereas most other therapies received endorsement from fewer than 25% of respondents. Overall, oncologists exhibited moderate alignment with evidence, demonstrating a tendency to permit rather than actively recommend complementary therapies, even when evidence indicated potential benefits and safety. These findings underscore the necessity for targeted educational interventions aimed at enhancing oncologists' understanding and ensuring the safe and informed integration of complementary therapies into clinical practice.
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.