ArticleBMJ open2012
Are complementary therapies and integrative care cost-effective? A systematic review of economic evaluations.
Article in BMJ open, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 71 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
71 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Impact of integrative therapies on glycemic control in type 1 diabetes: a systematic review and global research landscape.Frontiers in clinical diabetes and healthcare · 2026Pooled it
- Cost-effectiveness of integrative oncology for sustainable and patient-centred cancer care: a systematic review in the context of the WHO global traditional medicine strategy 2025-2034.Frontiers in public health · 2026Pooled it
- Systematic Review and Quality Evaluation of Pharmacoeconomic Studies on Traditional Chinese Medicines.Frontiers in public health · 2021Pooled it
- Economic analysis of complementary, alternative, and integrative medicine: considerations raised by an expert panel.BMC complementary and alternative medicine · 2013Guideline
- Pilot evaluation of an educational and lived experience training program on ketogenic metabolic therapy in mental health care for health care professionals.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2026Trial
- Healthcare service utilization and work-related productivity in reflexology intervention for advanced breast cancer women.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2019Trial
- Trial
- Massage Therapy and Quality of Life in Osteoarthritis of the Knee: A Qualitative Study.Pain medicine (Malden, Mass.) · 2017Trial
- Yoga versus education for Veterans with chronic low back pain: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.Trials · 2016Trial
- A scoping review of the barriers and facilitators in the use of traditional, complementary, and integrative medicine: insights for health policy development.Journal of health, population, and nutrition · 2025Article
- The Science of Tai Chi and Qigong as Whole Person Health-Part II: Evidence Gaps and Opportunities for Future Research and Implementation.Journal of integrative and complementary medicine · 2025Review
- Article
- Recent advances in acupuncture for pain relief.Pain reports · 2024Article
- The Mental Health Outcomes and Cost Estimates of Korean Medicine for Anxiety Disorder Patients.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Use of integrative and complementary health practices by Brazilian population: results from the 2019 National Health Survey.BMC public health · 2023Article
- Reporting quality of economic evaluations of the negotiated Traditional Chinese Medicines in national reimbursement drug list of China: A systematic review.Integrative medicine research · 2023Article
- Article
- Rates, patterns, and predictors of complementary medicine use among patients with musculoskeletal diseases.PloS one · 2023Article
- Trends in the Use of Opioids vs Nonpharmacologic Treatments in Adults With Pain, 2011-2019.JAMA network open · 2022Article
- Alternative interventions in clinical mental health settings: A survey of mental health professionals' perceptions.Complementary therapies in clinical practice · 2022Article
11 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveA comprehensive systematic review of economic evaluations of complementary and integrative medicine (CIM) to establish the value of these therapies to health reform efforts. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, CINAHL, AMED, PsychInfo, Web of Science and EMBASE were searched from inception through 2010. In addition, bibliographies of found articles and reviews were searched, and key researchers were contacted. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES: Studies of CIM were identified using criteria based on those of the Cochrane complementary and alternative medicine group. All studies of CIM reporting economic outcomes were included. STUDY APPRAISAL
methodsAll recent (and likely most cost-relevant) full economic evaluations published 2001-2010 were subjected to several measures of quality. Detailed results of higher-quality studies are reported.
resultsA total of 338 economic evaluations of CIM were identified, of which 204, covering a wide variety of CIM for different populations, were published 2001-2010. A total of 114 of these were full economic evaluations. And 90% of these articles covered studies of single CIM therapies and only one compared usual care to usual care plus access to multiple licensed CIM practitioners. Of the recent full evaluations, 31 (27%) met five study-quality criteria, and 22 of these also met the minimum criterion for study transferability ('generalisability'). Of the 56 comparisons made in the higher-quality studies, 16 (29%) show a health improvement with cost savings for the CIM therapy versus usual care. Study quality of the cost-utility analyses (CUAs) of CIM was generally comparable to that seen in CUAs across all medicine according to several measures, and the quality of the cost-saving studies was slightly, but not significantly, lower than those showing cost increases (85% vs 88%, p=0.460).
conclusionsThis comprehensive review identified many CIM economic evaluations missed by previous reviews and emerging evidence of cost-effectiveness and possible cost savings in at least a few clinical populations. Recommendations are made for future studies.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.