The management strategies of cancer-associated anorexia: A critical appraisal of systematic reviews

35Citations
Citations of this article
146Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Background: Cancer-related anorexia remains one of the most prevalent and troublesome clinical problems experienced by patients with cancer during and after therapy. To ensure high-quality care, systematic reviews (SRs) are seen as the best guide. Considering the methodology quality of SRs varies, we undertook a comprehensive overview, and critical appraisal of pertinent SRs. Methods: Eight databases (between the inception of each database and September 1, 2017) were searched for SRs on the management of cancer-related anorexia. Two researchers evaluated the methodological quality of each SR by using the Revised Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (R-AMSTAR) checklist. Characteristics of the "high quality" SRs were abstracted, included information on relevant studies numbers, study design, population, intervention, control, outcome and result. Results: Eighteen SRs met the inclusion criteria. The R-AMSTAR scores of methodological quality ranged from 18 to 41 out of 44, with an average score of 30. Totally eight SRs scored ≥31 points, which showed high methodological quality, and would be used for data extraction to make summaries. Anamorelin had some positive effects to relieve cancer anorexia-cachexia syndrome (CACS) and improve the quality of life (QoL). Megestrol Acetate (MA) could improve appetite, and was associated with slight weight gain for CACS. Oral nutritional interventions were effective in increasing nutritional intake and improving some aspects of QoL in patients with cancer who were malnourished or at nutritional risk. The use of thalidomide, Eicosapentaenoic Acid, and minerals, vitamins, proteins, or other supplements for the treatment of cachexia in cancer were uncertain, and there was inadequate evidence to recommend it to clinical practices, the same situation in Chinese Herb Medicine and acupuncture (acupuncture and related therapies were effective in improving QoL) for treating anorexia in cancer patients, warranting further RCTs in these areas. Conclusions: Anamorelin, MA, oral nutrition interventions, and acupuncture could be considered to be applied in patients with cancer-related anorexia. Future RCTs and SRs with high quality on the pharmaceutical or non-pharmaceutical interventions of anorexia in cancer patients are warranted.

References Powered by Scopus

AMSTAR 2: A critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both

5902Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Development of AMSTAR: A measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews

3405Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Global, regional, and national cancer incidence, mortality, years of life lost, years lived with disability, and disability-adjusted life-years for 32 cancer groups, 1990 to 2015: A Systematic Analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study Global Burden of Disease Cancer Collaboration

3377Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Cited by Powered by Scopus

Acupuncture for cancer-related conditions: An overview of systematic reviews

30Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

A randomised, double blind, placebo-controlled trial of megestrol acetate or dexamethasone in treating symptomatic anorexia in people with advanced cancer

30Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Nutrition interventions to improve the appetite of adults undergoing cancer treatment: a systematic review

19Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Zhang, F., Shen, A., Jin, Y., & Qiang, W. (2018). The management strategies of cancer-associated anorexia: A critical appraisal of systematic reviews. BMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine, 18(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12906-018-2304-8

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 27

54%

Researcher 11

22%

Professor / Associate Prof. 7

14%

Lecturer / Post doc 5

10%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Medicine and Dentistry 37

56%

Nursing and Health Professions 23

35%

Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceut... 3

5%

Social Sciences 3

5%

Article Metrics

Tooltip
Mentions
News Mentions: 1

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free