Complementary and integrative medicine mention and recommendations: A systematic review and quality assessment of lung cancer clinical practice guidelines

• Main Authors: Jeremy Y. Ng, Hayley Nault, Zainib Nazir
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: Elsevier 2021-03-01
• Series: Integrative Medicine Research
• Subjects: Lung cancer; Complementary and integrative medicine; Systematic review; AGREE II; Clinical practice guideline
• Online Access: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213422020300846

Background: Complementary and integrative medicine (CIM) use is widely sought by those diagnosed with cancer, with up to 50% of lung cancer patients seeking these therapies in the United States. The purpose of this study was to identify the quantity and assess the quality of CIM recommendations in clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for the treatment and/or management of lung cancer. Methods: A systematic review was conducted to identify lung cancer CPGs. MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL were searched from 2008 to 2018, along with the Guidelines International Network and the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health websites. Eligible guidelines containing recommendations for the treatment and/or management of lung cancer were assessed with the Appraisal of Guidelines, Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) instrument. Results: From 589 unique search results, 4 guidelines mentioned CIM, of which 3 guidelines made CIM recommendations. Scaled domain percentages from highest to lowest were: scope and purpose (82.4% overall, 76.9% CIM), clarity and presentation (96.3% overall, 63.0% CIM), editorial independence (61.1% overall, 61.1% CIM), rigour of development (62.5% overall, 54.9% CIM), stakeholder involvement (66.7% overall, 42.6% CIM) and applicability (29.9% overall, 18.8% CIM). Quality varied within and across guidelines. Conclusions: Guidelines that scored well could serve as a framework for discussion between patients and healthcare professionals regarding use of CIM therapies in the context of lung cancer. Guidelines that scored lower could be improved according to the AGREE II instrument, with insight from other guidelines development resources.