Patients with cancer frequently utilize complementary and alternative medicine (CAM); prior to this, many seek information about these therapies online. Little is known about the quality of this web-based consumer health information (CHI). The present study aimed to address this paucity of research by evaluating the quality of websites containing information on CAM treatments for cancer. Six unique search terms were entered into Google across four English-speaking countries. The first 20 results of each search were assessed and included if they contained CAM consumer health information for the treatment and/or management of cancer. Eligible websites were assessed using the 16-item DISCERN instrument, designed to evaluate information quality. Of the 480 identified websites, 387 were duplicates, and 53 fit the eligibility criteria and were assessed using the DISCERN instrument. Mean summed DISCERN scores across all websites was 53.08 (SD = 12.75), and mean scores of the overall quality of each website was 3.22 (SD = 0.80). Website CHI quality on CAM therapies for cancer were generally acceptable. Several website quality issues were identified, including a lack of transparency surrounding references, areas of uncertainty, consequences of foregoing treatment, and treatment impacts on quality of life.

Cancer patients often utilize complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) in hopes that it will treat their disease and improve their physical and emotional well-being; past research has found that up to 80 % of patients diagnosed with colorectal cancer use CAM. Caution must be taken, however, as some CAM therapies can be shown to be detrimental to patient health. This study identified the quantity and quality of recommendations associated with CAM in clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for the treatment and/or management of colon cancer. A systematic review was conducted to identify colon cancer CPGs. MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL databases along with the National Centre for Complementary and Integrative Health (NCCIH) website were searched from 2008 to October 2018. The Guidelines International Network and the National Centre for Complementary and Integrative Health websites were also searched. It was originally planned that had eligible guidelines been found to contain CAM recommendations, they would have been assessed with the Appraisal of Guidelines, Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) instrument, however, none were found. From 160 unique search results, 8 CPGs were found to be eligible, however, no CPGs were found to make mention of CAM nor provide CAM recommendations. The CPGs found primarily discussed the effectiveness of conventional and adjuvant therapies, providing recommendations surrounding topics such as chemotherapy, radiotherapy, surgery, and the usage of oxaliplatin. The quality of CAM versus overall recommendations could not be assessed in CPGs for the treatment and/or management of colon cancer, as no CAM recommendations were found in any of the eligible articles. Given that it is known that a high proportion of patients with colon cancer seek CAM, current colon cancer CPGs’ lack of CAM treatment or management recommendations reflects a large gap in guidance for both clinicians and clinical researchers.

Background: Cancer patients often utilize complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) in hopes that it will treat their disease and improve their physical and emotional well-being; past research has found that up to 80 % of patients diagnosed with colorectal cancer use CAM. Caution must be taken, however, as some CAM therapies can be shown to be detrimental to patient health. This study identified the quantity and quality of recommendations associated with CAM in clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for the treatment and/or management of colon cancer. Methods: A systematic review was conducted to identify colon cancer CPGs. MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL databases along with the National Centre for Complementary and Integrative Health (NCCIH) website were searched from 2008 to October 2018. The Guidelines International Network and the National Centre for Complementary and Integrative Health websites were also searched. It was originally planned that had eligible guidelines been found to contain CAM recommendations, they would have been assessed with the Appraisal of Guidelines, Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) instrument, however, none were found. Results: From 160 unique search results, 8 CPGs were found to be eligible, however, no CPGs were found to make mention of CAM nor provide CAM recommendations. The CPGs found primarily discussed the effectiveness of conventional and adjuvant therapies, providing recommendations surrounding topics such as chemotherapy, radiotherapy, surgery, and the usage of oxaliplatin. Conclusions: The quality of CAM versus overall recommendations could not be assessed in CPGs for the treatment and/or management of colon cancer, as no CAM recommendations were found in any of the eligible articles. Given that it is known that a high proportion of patients with colon cancer seek CAM, current colon cancer CPGs' lack of CAM treatment or management recommendations reflects a large gap in guidance for both clinicians and clinical researchers. (C) 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Background Given an increased global prevalence of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) use, healthcare providers commonly seek CAM-related health information online. Numerous online resources containing CAM-specific information exist, many of which are readily available/accessible, containing information shareable with their patients. To the authors’ knowledge, no study has summarized nor assessed the quality of content contained within these online resources for at least a decade, specifically pertaining to information about adverse effects or interactions. Methods This study provides summaries of web-based online resources that provide safety information on potential interactions or adverse effects of CAM. Specifically, clinicians are the intended users of these online resources containing patient information which they can then disseminate to their patients. All online resources were assessed for content quality using the validated rating tool, DISCERN. Results Of 21 articles identified in our previously published scoping review, 23 online resources were eligible. DISCERN assessments suggests that online resources containing CAM-specific information vary in quality. Summed DISCERN scores had a mean of 56.13 (SD = 10.25) out of 75. Online resources with the highest total DISCERN scores across all questions included Micromedex (68.50), Merck Manual (67.50) and Drugs.com (66.50). Online resources with the lowest total scores included Drug Information (33.00), Caremark Drug Interactions (42.50) and HIV Drug Interactions (43.00). The DISCERN questions that received the highest mean score across all online resources referred to whether the risks were described for each treatment (4.66), whether the aims were clear (4.58), whether the source achieved those aims (4.58), and whether the website referred to areas of uncertainty (4.58). The DISCERN questions that received the lowest mean score across all online resources assessed whether there was discussion about no treatment being used (1.29) and how treatment choices would affect quality of life (2.00). Conclusion This study provides a comprehensive list of online resources containing CAM-specific information. Informed by the appraisal of these resources, this study provides a summarized list of high quality, evidence-based, online resources about CAM and CAM-related adverse effects. This list of recommended resources can thereby serve as a useful reference for clinicians, researchers, and patients.