No abstract

The most popular websites on complementary and alternative medicine for cancer offer information of extremely variable quality. Many endorse unproven therapies and some are outright dangerous.

Herbal weight-loss supplements are marketed with claims of effectiveness. Our earlier systematic review identified data from double-blind, randomized controlled trials for a number of herbal supplements. The aim of this systematic review was to assess all clinical evidence of adverse events of herbal food supplements for body weight reduction for which effectiveness data from rigorous clinical trials exist. We assessed Ephedra sinica, Garcinia cambogia, Paullinia cupana, guar gum, Plantago psyllium, Ilex paraguariensis and Pausinystalia yohimbe. Literature searches were conducted on Medline, Embase, Amed and The Cochrane Library. Data were also requested from the spontaneous reporting scheme of the World Health Organization. We hand-searched relevant medical journals and our own files. There were no restrictions regarding the language of publication. The results show that adverse events including hepatic injury and death have been reported with the use of some herbal food supplements. For herbal ephedra and ephedrine-containing food supplements an increased risk of psychiatric, autonomic or gastrointestinal adverse events and heart palpitations has been reported. In conclusion, adverse events are reported for a number of herbal food supplements, which are used for reducing body weight. Although the quality of the data does not justify definitive attribution of causality in most cases, the reported risks are sufficient to shift the risk-benefit balance against the use of most of the reviewed herbal weight-loss supplements. Exceptions are Garcinia cambogia and yerba mate, which merit further investigation.

The notion that acupuncture may be an effective analgesic adjunctive method for cancer patients is not supported by the data currently available from the majority of rigorous clinical trials. Because of its widespread acceptance, appropriately powered RCTs are needed.

SUMMARYAim: The aim of this paper is to summarise and critically evaluate the evidence available from controlled clinical trials regarding the use of guided imagery as a sole adjuvant therapy for cancer patients.Methods: Electronic searches for controlled clinical trials were carried out in eight databases and two clinical trial registers. Trials that featured guided imagery as a sole adjuvant therapy were included. No language restrictions were imposed. Data were extracted and validated independently by two researchers.Results: Six randomised clinical trials were included. Detailed results were available for four studies only. Poor reporting and heterogeneous populations, interventions and outcome measures across trials precluded statistical pooling of results. The methodological quality was on average low. Three studies reported significant differences in measures of anxiety, comfort or emotional response to chemotherapy for patients who received guided imagery over the control groups. Two studies showed no differences between guided imagery and other interventions in any of the outcome measures.Conclusion: Guided imagery, as a sole adjuvant cancer therapy may be psycho-supportive and increase comfort. There is no compelling evidence to suggest positive effects on physical symptoms such as nausea and vomiting. The data seem sufficiently encouraging for the use of guided imagery as an adjuvant cancer therapy to merit further research.