Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17480212›Full record

ArticleBMC family practice2007

The use of CAM and conventional treatments among primary care consulters with chronic musculoskeletal pain.

Majid Artus, Peter Croft, Martyn Lewis

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC family practice, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
21.8field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

29 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 81 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Complementary and Alternative Medicine for Chronic Musculoskeletal Pain.Federal practitioner : for the health care professionals of the VA, DoD, and PHS · 2015
    Article
  15. Article
  16. The effect of complementary and alternative medicine on subfertile women with in vitro fertilization.Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM · 2014
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Majid ArtusPrimary Care Musculoskeletal Research Centre, Keele University, Stoke on Trent, Staffordshire, UK. m.artus@cphc.keele.ac.uk
Peter Croft
Martyn Lewis
Keele University · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundChronic musculoskeletal pain is the single most cited reason for use of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM). Primary care is the most frequent conventional medical service used by patients with pain in the UK. We are unaware, however, of a direct evidence of the extent of CAM use by primary care patients, and how successful they perceive it to be.

methodsAIMS AND

objectivesTo determine CAM use among patients with chronic musculoskeletal pain who have consulted about their pain in primary care. STUDY

designFace-to-face interview-based survey.

settingThree general practices in North Staffordshire.

participantsRespondents to a population pain survey who had reported having musculoskeletal pain in the survey and who had consulted about their pain in primary care in the previous 12 months as well as consenting to further research and agreeing to an interview. Information was gathered about their pain and the use of all treatments for pain, including CAM, in the previous year.

results138 interviews were completed. 116 participants (84%) had used at least one CAM treatment for pain in the previous year. 65% were current users of CAM. The ratio of over-the-counter CAM use to care from a CAM provider was 3:2. 111 participants (80%) had used conventional treatment. 95 (69%) were using a combination of CAM and conventional treatment. Glucosamine and fish oil were the most commonly used CAM treatments (38%, 35% respectively). Most CAM treatments were scored on average as being helpful, and users indicated that they intended to use again 87% of the CAM treatments they had already used.

conclusionWe provide direct evidence that most primary care consulters with chronic musculoskeletal pain have used CAM in the previous year, usually in combination with conventional treatments. The high prevalence and wide range of users experiences of benefit and harm from CAM strengthen the argument for more research into this type of medicine to quantify benefit and assess safety. The observation that most users of conventional medicine also used CAM suggests a continuing need for more investigation of effective pain management in primary care.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAgedChronic DiseaseComplementary TherapiesFamily PracticeFemaleHealth Care SurveysHumansMaleMiddle AgedMusculoskeletal DiseasesPainPatient Acceptance of Health CarePrimary Health CareSocial Class

Identifiers

PMID17480212
PMCPMC1878478
OpenAlexW2059735181

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.