Efficacy of complementary and alternative medicine therapies in relieving cancer pain

A systematic review

Aditya Bardia, Debra L. Barton, Larry J. Prokop, Brent A Bauer, Timothy J. Moynihan

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

145 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose: Despite widespread popular use of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) therapies, a rigorous evidence base about their efficacy for cancer-related pain is lacking. This is a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating CAM therapies for cancer-related pain. Methods: RCTs using CAM interventions for cancer-related pain were abstracted using Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, AMED, and Cochrane database. Results: Eighteen trials were identified (eight poor, three intermediate, and seven high quality based on Jadad score), with a total of 1,499 patients. Median sample size was 53 patients, and median intervention duration was 45 days. All studies were from single institutions, four had sample size justification, and none reported any adverse effects. Seven trials reported significant benefit for the following CAM therapies: acupuncture (n = 1), support groups (n = 2), hypnosis (n = 1), relaxation/imagery (n = 2), and herbal supplement/HESA-A (n = 1, but study was of low quality without control data). Seven studies reported immediate postintervention or short-term benefit of the following CAM interventions: acupuncture (n = 2), music (n = 1), herbal supplement/Ai-Tong-Ping (n = 1), massage (n = 1), and healing touch (n = 2). Four studies reported no benefit of CAM interventions (music, n = 2; massage, n = 2) in reducing cancer pain compared with a control arm. Conclusion: There is paucity of multi-institutional RCTs evaluating CAM interventions for cancer pain with adequate power, duration, and sham control. Hypnosis, imagery, support groups, acupuncture, and healing touch seem promising, particularly in the short term, but none can be recommended because of a paucity of rigorous trials. Future research should focus on methodologically strong RCTs to determine potential efficacy of these CAM interventions.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)5457-5464
Number of pages8
JournalJournal of Clinical Oncology
Volume24
Issue number34
DOIs
StatePublished - Dec 1 2006

Fingerprint

Complementary Therapies
Acupuncture
Randomized Controlled Trials
Cancer Pain
Massage
Hypnosis
Self-Help Groups
Imagery (Psychotherapy)
Touch
Music
Sample Size

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Cancer Research
  • Oncology
  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Efficacy of complementary and alternative medicine therapies in relieving cancer pain : A systematic review. / Bardia, Aditya; Barton, Debra L.; Prokop, Larry J.; Bauer, Brent A; Moynihan, Timothy J.

In: Journal of Clinical Oncology, Vol. 24, No. 34, 01.12.2006, p. 5457-5464.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Bardia, Aditya ; Barton, Debra L. ; Prokop, Larry J. ; Bauer, Brent A ; Moynihan, Timothy J. / Efficacy of complementary and alternative medicine therapies in relieving cancer pain : A systematic review. In: Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2006 ; Vol. 24, No. 34. pp. 5457-5464.
@article{9ccbf2af1e404e9c9da2b24da4517ff1,
title = "Efficacy of complementary and alternative medicine therapies in relieving cancer pain: A systematic review",
abstract = "Purpose: Despite widespread popular use of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) therapies, a rigorous evidence base about their efficacy for cancer-related pain is lacking. This is a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating CAM therapies for cancer-related pain. Methods: RCTs using CAM interventions for cancer-related pain were abstracted using Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, AMED, and Cochrane database. Results: Eighteen trials were identified (eight poor, three intermediate, and seven high quality based on Jadad score), with a total of 1,499 patients. Median sample size was 53 patients, and median intervention duration was 45 days. All studies were from single institutions, four had sample size justification, and none reported any adverse effects. Seven trials reported significant benefit for the following CAM therapies: acupuncture (n = 1), support groups (n = 2), hypnosis (n = 1), relaxation/imagery (n = 2), and herbal supplement/HESA-A (n = 1, but study was of low quality without control data). Seven studies reported immediate postintervention or short-term benefit of the following CAM interventions: acupuncture (n = 2), music (n = 1), herbal supplement/Ai-Tong-Ping (n = 1), massage (n = 1), and healing touch (n = 2). Four studies reported no benefit of CAM interventions (music, n = 2; massage, n = 2) in reducing cancer pain compared with a control arm. Conclusion: There is paucity of multi-institutional RCTs evaluating CAM interventions for cancer pain with adequate power, duration, and sham control. Hypnosis, imagery, support groups, acupuncture, and healing touch seem promising, particularly in the short term, but none can be recommended because of a paucity of rigorous trials. Future research should focus on methodologically strong RCTs to determine potential efficacy of these CAM interventions.",
author = "Aditya Bardia and Barton, {Debra L.} and Prokop, {Larry J.} and Bauer, {Brent A} and Moynihan, {Timothy J.}",
year = "2006",
month = "12",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1200/JCO.2006.08.3725",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "24",
pages = "5457--5464",
journal = "Journal of Clinical Oncology",
issn = "0732-183X",
publisher = "American Society of Clinical Oncology",
number = "34",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Efficacy of complementary and alternative medicine therapies in relieving cancer pain

T2 - A systematic review

AU - Bardia, Aditya

AU - Barton, Debra L.

AU - Prokop, Larry J.

AU - Bauer, Brent A

AU - Moynihan, Timothy J.

PY - 2006/12/1

Y1 - 2006/12/1

N2 - Purpose: Despite widespread popular use of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) therapies, a rigorous evidence base about their efficacy for cancer-related pain is lacking. This is a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating CAM therapies for cancer-related pain. Methods: RCTs using CAM interventions for cancer-related pain were abstracted using Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, AMED, and Cochrane database. Results: Eighteen trials were identified (eight poor, three intermediate, and seven high quality based on Jadad score), with a total of 1,499 patients. Median sample size was 53 patients, and median intervention duration was 45 days. All studies were from single institutions, four had sample size justification, and none reported any adverse effects. Seven trials reported significant benefit for the following CAM therapies: acupuncture (n = 1), support groups (n = 2), hypnosis (n = 1), relaxation/imagery (n = 2), and herbal supplement/HESA-A (n = 1, but study was of low quality without control data). Seven studies reported immediate postintervention or short-term benefit of the following CAM interventions: acupuncture (n = 2), music (n = 1), herbal supplement/Ai-Tong-Ping (n = 1), massage (n = 1), and healing touch (n = 2). Four studies reported no benefit of CAM interventions (music, n = 2; massage, n = 2) in reducing cancer pain compared with a control arm. Conclusion: There is paucity of multi-institutional RCTs evaluating CAM interventions for cancer pain with adequate power, duration, and sham control. Hypnosis, imagery, support groups, acupuncture, and healing touch seem promising, particularly in the short term, but none can be recommended because of a paucity of rigorous trials. Future research should focus on methodologically strong RCTs to determine potential efficacy of these CAM interventions.

AB - Purpose: Despite widespread popular use of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) therapies, a rigorous evidence base about their efficacy for cancer-related pain is lacking. This is a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating CAM therapies for cancer-related pain. Methods: RCTs using CAM interventions for cancer-related pain were abstracted using Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, AMED, and Cochrane database. Results: Eighteen trials were identified (eight poor, three intermediate, and seven high quality based on Jadad score), with a total of 1,499 patients. Median sample size was 53 patients, and median intervention duration was 45 days. All studies were from single institutions, four had sample size justification, and none reported any adverse effects. Seven trials reported significant benefit for the following CAM therapies: acupuncture (n = 1), support groups (n = 2), hypnosis (n = 1), relaxation/imagery (n = 2), and herbal supplement/HESA-A (n = 1, but study was of low quality without control data). Seven studies reported immediate postintervention or short-term benefit of the following CAM interventions: acupuncture (n = 2), music (n = 1), herbal supplement/Ai-Tong-Ping (n = 1), massage (n = 1), and healing touch (n = 2). Four studies reported no benefit of CAM interventions (music, n = 2; massage, n = 2) in reducing cancer pain compared with a control arm. Conclusion: There is paucity of multi-institutional RCTs evaluating CAM interventions for cancer pain with adequate power, duration, and sham control. Hypnosis, imagery, support groups, acupuncture, and healing touch seem promising, particularly in the short term, but none can be recommended because of a paucity of rigorous trials. Future research should focus on methodologically strong RCTs to determine potential efficacy of these CAM interventions.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=34247232055&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=34247232055&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1200/JCO.2006.08.3725

DO - 10.1200/JCO.2006.08.3725

M3 - Article

VL - 24

SP - 5457

EP - 5464

JO - Journal of Clinical Oncology

JF - Journal of Clinical Oncology

SN - 0732-183X

IS - 34

ER -