Aan dit artikel is enkele uren gewerkt. Opzoeken, vertalen, plaatsen enz. Als u ons wilt ondersteunen dan kan dat via een al of niet anonieme donatie. Elk bedrag is welkom hoe klein ook. Klik hier als u ons wilt helpen kanker-actueel online te houden Wij zijn een ANBI organisatie en daarom is uw donatie aftrekbaar voor de belasting

28 december 2011: Bron: BMC Cancer. 2011 Jan 17;11:19. Peter wees me op onderstaande publicatie, waarvoor dank.

Kankerpatiënten die bewust kiezen voor een niet toxische aanpak met o.a. homeopathische middelen en bepaalde niet toxische middelen (in Amerika vallen ook vitamines en mineralen onder daar zogeheten homeopathische middelen), al of niet als aanvulling op een eerdere reguliere aanpak blijken daarbij een betere kwaliteit van leven te bewerkstelligen dan kankerpatiënten die alleen bewust kozen voor een reguliere aanpak met voornamelijk chemokuren, maar ook voor bestraling, hormoontherapie plus standaard beste zorg. Ook de mediane overleving na 1 jaar was nagenoeg gelijk. Dit blijkt uit een vergelijkende studie bij totaal 649 kankerpatiënten.

Het bijzondere aan deze studie is dat de patiënten zelf bij de start van de studie de keuze werd gegeven voor een reguliere aanpak of een niet toxische aanpak van hun kanker. Er werd dus niet 1 middel getoetst maar een complete aanpak van zorg. Er waren kankerpatiënten met veel verschillende stadia van hun kanker. Zowel een eerste diagnose als stadium IV. Veel kankerpatiënten hadden al verschillende reguliere behandelingen achter de rug voordat ze aan deze studie begonnen. De onderzoekers merken wel op dat ze weinig matchpairs - kankerpatienten met vergelijkbare ziektestadium enz hebben kunnen vinden bij de deelnemers en daardoor verliest deze studie wel zijn bewijskracht volgens de normen die nu gelden voor wetenschappelijk onderzoek. Desalniettemin geeft deze studie wel een opmerkelijk resultaat te zien. 

Hier het abstract van de studie. Het volledige studierapport kunt u gratis inzien als u hier klikt. Op de Nederlandse versie van de website Want-to-know-what-your-doctor-tells is een gedeeltelijke vertaling gemaakt van deze studie met ook opmerkingen van de redactie. Klik hier voor dit artikel.  Onder het abstract staat een referentielijst 

In our prospective study, we observed an improvement of quality of life as well as a tendency of fatigue symptoms to decrease in cancer patients under complementary homeopathic treatment

BMC Cancer. 2011 Jan 17;11:19.

Classical homeopathy in the treatment of cancer patients--a prospective observational study of two independent cohorts.

Source

Tumour Biology Center at Albert Ludwig's University Freiburg, Germany. matthias.rostock@usz.ch

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

Many cancer patients seek homeopathy as a complementary therapy. It has rarely been studied systematically, whether homeopathic care is of benefit for cancer patients.

METHODS:

We conducted a prospective observational study with cancer patients in two differently treated cohorts: one cohort with patients under complementary homeopathic treatment (HG; n = 259), and one cohort with conventionally treated cancer patients (CG; n = 380). For a direct comparison, matched pairs with patients of the same tumour entity and comparable prognosis were to be formed. Main outcome parameter: change of quality of life (FACT-G, FACIT-Sp) after 3 months. Secondary outcome parameters: change of quality of life (FACT-G, FACIT-Sp) after a year, as well as impairment by fatigue (MFI) and by anxiety and depression (HADS).

RESULTS:

HG: FACT-G, or FACIT-Sp, respectively improved statistically significantly in the first three months, from 75.6 (SD 14.6) to 81.1 (SD 16.9), or from 32.1 (SD 8.2) to 34.9 (SD 8.32), respectively. After 12 months, a further increase to 84.1 (SD 15.5) or 35.2 (SD 8.6) was found. Fatigue (MFI) decreased; anxiety and depression (HADS) did not change. CG: FACT-G remained constant in the first three months: 75.3 (SD 17.3) at t0, and 76.6 (SD 16.6) at t1. After 12 months, there was a slight increase to 78.9 (SD 18.1). FACIT-Sp scores improved significantly from t0 (31.0 - SD 8.9) to t1 (32.1 - SD 8.9) and declined again after a year (31.6 - SD 9.4). For fatigue, anxiety, and depression, no relevant changes were found. 120 patients of HG and 206 patients of CG met our criteria for matched-pairs selection. Due to large differences between the two patient populations, however, only 11 matched pairs could be formed. This is not sufficient for a comparative study.

CONCLUSION:

In our prospective study, we observed an improvement of quality of life as well as a tendency of fatigue symptoms to decrease in cancer patients under complementary homeopathic treatment. It would take considerably larger samples to find matched pairs suitable for comparison in order to establish a definite causal relation between these effects and homeopathic treatment.

PMID:
21241504
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
PMCID: PMC3035587

References

  1. Molassiotis A, Fernadez-Ortega P, Pud D, et al.: Use of complementary and alternative medicine in cancer patients: a European survey.

    Ann Oncol 2005, 16:655-663. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text OpenURL

    Return to text

     

  2. Frenkel M: Homeopathy in cancer care.

    Altern Ther Health Med 16:12-16. PubMed Abstract OpenURL

    Return to text

     

  3. Walach H, Jonas WB, Ives J, et al.: Research on homeopathy: state of the art.

    J Altern Complement Med 2005, 11:813-829. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text OpenURL

    Return to text

     

  4. Jonas WB, Kaptchuk TJ, Linde K: A critical overview of homeopathy.

    Ann Intern Med 2003, 138:393-399. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text OpenURL

    Return to text

     

  5. Linde K, Clausius N, Ramirez G, et al.: Are the clinical effects of homeopathy placebo effects? A meta-analysis of placebo-controlled trials.

    Lancet 1997, 350:834-843. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text OpenURL

    Return to text

     

  6. Shang A, Huwiler-Müntener K, Nartey L, et al.: Are the clinical effects of homeopathy placebo effects? Comparative study of placebo-controlled trials of homeopathy and allopathy.

    Lancet 2005, 366:726-732. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text OpenURL

    Return to text

     

  7. Ludtke R, Rutten AL: The conclusions on the effectiveness of homeopathy highly depend on the set of analyzed trials.

    J Clin Epidemiol 2008, 61:1197-1204. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text OpenURL

    Return to text

     

  8. Kassab S, Cummings M, Berkovitz S, et al.: Homeopathic medicines for adverse effects of cancer treatments.

    Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2009.

    CD004845

    PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text OpenURL

     

    Return to text

     

  9. Milazzo S, Russell N, Ernst E: Efficacy of homeopathic therapy in cancer treatment.

    Eur J Cancer 2006, 42:282-289. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text OpenURL

    Return to text

     

  10. Jacobs J, Herman P, Heron K, et al.: Homeopathy for menopausal symptoms in breast cancer survivors: a preliminary randomized controlled trial.

    J Altern Complement Med 2005, 11:21-27. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text OpenURL

    Return to text

     

  11. Thompson EA, Montgomery A, Douglas D, Reilly D: A pilot randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled trial of individualized homeopathy for symptoms of estrogen withdrawal in breast-cancer survivors.

    J Altern Complement Med 2005, 11:13-20. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text OpenURL

    Return to text

     

  12. Spinedi D: Die Krebsbehandlung in der Homöopathie. Kempten: Cheiron Verlag; 1999.

    In Edition

    OpenURL

     

    Return to text

     

  13. Takacs M: Erfahrungen bei der Krebsbehandlung in der Clinica Santa Croce (Orselina, Schweiz).

    Allgemeine Homöopathische Zeitung 2004, 249:232-239. OpenURL

    Return to text

     

  14. Walach H, Haeusler W, Lowes T, et al.: Classical homeopathic treatment of chronic headaches.

    Cephalalgia 1997, 17:119-126.

    discussion 101

    PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text OpenURL

     

    Return to text

     

  15. Mitzdorf U, Beck K, Horton-Hausknecht J, et al.: Why do patients seek treatment in hospitals of complementary medicine?

    J Altern Complement Med 1999, 5:463-473. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text OpenURL

    Return to text

     

  16. Rostock M, Huber R: Randomized and double-blind studies--demands and reality as demonstrated by two examples of mistletoe research.

    Forsch Komplementarmed Klass Naturheilkd 2004, 11(Suppl 1):18-22. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text OpenURL

    Return to text

     

  17. Katz T, Fisher P, Katz A, et al.: The feasibility of a randomised, placebo-controlled clinical trial of homeopathic treatment of depression in general practice.

    Homeopathy 2005, 94:145-152. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text OpenURL

    Return to text

     

  18. Lüdtke R, Schmück M, Gerhard I: Methodische Überlegungen zum Wirksamkeitsnachweis der homöopathischen Einzelmittelbehandlung von Zyklusstörungen.

    Forschende Komplementärmedizin 1997, 4:28-32. OpenURL

    Return to text

     

  19. von Rohr E, Pampallona S, van Wegberg B, et al.: Experiences in the realisation of a research project on anthroposophical medicine in patients with advanced cancer.

    Schweiz Med Wochenschr 2000, 130:1173-1184. PubMed Abstract OpenURL

    Return to text

     

  20. Gerhard I, Abel U, Loewe-Mesch A, et al.: Problems of randomized studies in complementary medicine demonstrated in a study on mistletoe treatment of patients with breast cancer.

    Forsch Komplementarmed Klass Naturheilkd 2004, 11:150-157. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text OpenURL

    Return to text

     

  21. Walach H, Falkenberg T, Fonnebo V, et al.: Circular instead of hierarchical: methodological principles for the evaluation of complex interventions.

    BMC Med Res Methodol 2006, 6:29. PubMed Abstract | BioMed Central Full Text | PubMed Central Full Text OpenURL

    Return to text

     

  22. Guethlin C, Walach H, Naumann J, et al.: Characteristics of cancer patients using homeopathy compared with those in conventional care: a cross-sectional study.

    Ann Oncol 2010, 21:1094-1099. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text OpenURL

    Return to text

     

  23. Cella DF, Tulsky DS, Gray G, et al.: The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy scale: development and validation of the general measure.

    J Clin Oncol 1993, 11:570-579. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text OpenURL

    Return to text

     

  24. Peterman AH, Fitchett G, Brady MJ, et al.: Measuring spiritual well-being in people with cancer: the functional assessment of chronic illness therapy--Spiritual Well-being Scale (FACIT-Sp).

    Ann Behav Med 2002, 24:49-58. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text OpenURL

    Return to text

     

  25. Smets EM, Garssen B, Bonke B, De Haes JC: The Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory (MFI) psychometric qualities of an instrument to assess fatigue.

    J Psychosom Res 1995, 39:315-325. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text OpenURL

    Return to text

     

  26. Zigmond AS, Snaith RP: The hospital anxiety and depression scale.

    Acta Psychiatr Scand 1983, 67:361-370. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text OpenURL

    Return to text

     

  27. Cella D, Hahn EA, Dineen K: Meaningful change in cancer-specific quality of life scores: differences between improvement and worsening.

    Qual Life Res 2002, 11:207-221. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text OpenURL

    Return to text

     

  28. Purcell A, Fleming J, Bennett S, et al.: Determining the minimal clinically important difference criteria for the Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory in a radiotherapy population.

    Support Care Cancer 18:307-315. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text OpenURL

    Return to text

     

  29. Cella D, Eton DT, Lai JS, et al.: Combining anchor and distribution-based methods to derive minimal clinically important differences on the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) anemia and fatigue scales.

    J Pain Symptom Manage 2002, 24:547-561. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text OpenURL

    Return to text

     

  30. King MT, Fayers PM: Making quality-of-life results more meaningful for clinicians.

    Lancet 2008, 371:709-710. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text OpenURL

    Return to text

     

  31. Webster K, Cella D, Yost K: The Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy (FACIT) Measurement System: properties, applications, and interpretation.

    Health Qual Life Outcomes 2003, 1:79. PubMed Abstract | BioMed Central Full Text | PubMed Central Full Text OpenURL

    Return to text

     

  32. Yost KJ, Eton DT: Combining distribution- and anchor-based approaches to determine minimally important differences: the FACIT experience.

    Eval Health Prof 2005, 28:172-191. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text OpenURL

    Return to text

     

  33. Aickin M: Randomization, balance, and the validity and efficiency of design-adaptive allocation methods.

    Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference 2001, 94:97-119. Publisher Full Text OpenURL

    Return to text

     

  34. Moerman DE, Jonas WB: Deconstructing the placebo effect and finding the meaning response.

    Ann Intern Med 2002, 136:471-476. PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full Text OpenURL

    Return to text

     


Plaats een reactie ...

Reageer op "Homeopathie: Niet toxische aanpak blijkt kwaliteit van leven te verbeteren tegenover reguliere aanpak. Blijkt uit een vergelijkend onderzoek bij totaal 649 kankerpatiënten"


Gerelateerde artikelen