Global use of traditional, complementary and integrative medicine among adults with cancer in hospital and clinical settings: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Abstract
Introduction: Traditional, Complementary and Integrative Medicine (TCIM) use is common among adults with cancer worldwide, yet global prevalence estimates remain outdated and fragmented. This meta-analysis aimed to provide an updated estimate of TCIM use among adults with cancer in hospital or clinical settings and to explore variations by region, income level, cancer type, and sex. Methods: PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, CINAHL, and Google Scholar were systematically searched from January 2000 to February 2024. Eligible studies were cross-sectional and included adults with cancer assessed in clinical or hospital settings, and reported quantitative data on TCIM use. Prevalence estimates were logittransformed and pooled using a random-effects model with maximum likelihood estimation and Hartung--Knapp adjustment. Heterogeneity was assessed using I², and subgroup analyses and meta-regression were performed to explore sources of variability. Certainty of evidence was evaluated using a pragmatic adaptation of GRADE. Results: Forty-five studies including 24,721 patients from 28 countries met inclusion criteria. The pooled prevalence of TCIM use among adults with cancer in hospital or clinical settings was 51% (95% CI: 45-56%). TCIM use was highest in the Americas (64%) and lowest in Europe (45%). Biologically based practices were the most commonly reported modalities. Heterogeneity was high (I² = 98%), with prevalence estimates ranging from 18% to 91% across studies, indicating substantial inconsistency, and small-study effects were suspected. The certainty of evidence was rated as low. Conclusions: TCIM use in hospital or clinical settings remains highly prevalent among adults with cancer receiving clinical care, underscoring the need for systematic screening, patient-clinician dialogue, and evidenceinformed integration of safe TCIM practices into supportive oncology care. Future research should prioritize standardized definitions, improved methodological harmonization, and individual participant data metaanalyses to reduce heterogeneity.
Related
- EnsPlex: Integrative Protein Complex Prediction through Multi-source Complementary Structural Sampling and Topology-Aware Candidate Selection
- Unlocking the therapeutic potential of traditional Chinese medicine in Crohn’s disease: from multi-target mechanisms to clinical promise
- Fucoidan: Structure–activity relationships, molecular mechanisms, and nanotherapeutic applications with perspectives from Traditional Chinese Medicine
- Traditional Chinese medicine modulates immune homeostasis through the gut microbiota–microbial metabolite axis
- PANoptosis: a novel therapeutic target and mechanistic insight into traditional Chinese medicine intervention in inflammatory bowel disease: a review
BibTeX
@article{toniolo2026global,
title = {{Global use of traditional, complementary and integrative medicine among adults with cancer in hospital and clinical settings: A systematic review and meta-analysis}},
author = {Jean Toniolo and Faustine Dessi and Blaise Choki and Caroline Adou and Alexis Parenté and Véronique Blanquet and Zina Bakiri and Etienne Herault and Andrea Erazo and Emilie Auditeau and Jeremy Jost and Thibaut Gelle and Edgard Brice Ngoungou and Elodie Marcellaud and Marion Vergonjeanne and Pascale Beloni},
journal = {European Journal of Integrative Medicine},
year = {2026},
month = sep,
doi = {10.1016/j.eujim.2026.102698},
url = {https://unilim.hal.science/hal-05735547v1},
note = {CC BY 4.0},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - Global use of traditional, complementary and integrative medicine among adults with cancer in hospital and clinical settings: A systematic review and meta-analysis
AU - Jean Toniolo
AU - Faustine Dessi
AU - Blaise Choki
AU - Caroline Adou
AU - Alexis Parenté
AU - Véronique Blanquet
AU - Zina Bakiri
AU - Etienne Herault
AU - Andrea Erazo
AU - Emilie Auditeau
AU - Jeremy Jost
AU - Thibaut Gelle
AU - Edgard Brice Ngoungou
AU - Elodie Marcellaud
AU - Marion Vergonjeanne
AU - Pascale Beloni
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/09/02
JO - European Journal of Integrative Medicine
DO - 10.1016/j.eujim.2026.102698
UR - https://unilim.hal.science/hal-05735547v1
AB - Introduction: Traditional, Complementary and Integrative Medicine (TCIM) use is common among adults with cancer worldwide, yet global prevalence estimates remain outdated and fragmented. This meta-analysis aimed to provide an updated estimate of TCIM use among adults with cancer in hospital or clinical settings and to explore variations by region, income level, cancer type, and sex. Methods: PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, CINAHL, and Google Scholar were systematically searched from January 2000 to February 2024. Eligible studies were cross-sectional and included adults with cancer assessed in clinical or hospital settings, and reported quantitative data on TCIM use. Prevalence estimates were logittransformed and pooled using a random-effects model with maximum likelihood estimation and Hartung--Knapp adjustment. Heterogeneity was assessed using I², and subgroup analyses and meta-regression were performed to explore sources of variability. Certainty of evidence was evaluated using a pragmatic adaptation of GRADE. Results: Forty-five studies including 24,721 patients from 28 countries met inclusion criteria. The pooled prevalence of TCIM use among adults with cancer in hospital or clinical settings was 51% (95% CI: 45-56%). TCIM use was highest in the Americas (64%) and lowest in Europe (45%). Biologically based practices were the most commonly reported modalities. Heterogeneity was high (I² = 98%), with prevalence estimates ranging from 18% to 91% across studies, indicating substantial inconsistency, and small-study effects were suspected. The certainty of evidence was rated as low. Conclusions: TCIM use in hospital or clinical settings remains highly prevalent among adults with cancer receiving clinical care, underscoring the need for systematic screening, patient-clinician dialogue, and evidenceinformed integration of safe TCIM practices into supportive oncology care. Future research should prioritize standardized definitions, improved methodological harmonization, and individual participant data metaanalyses to reduce heterogeneity.
SN - 1876-3820
ER -