Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23681857›Full record

SynthesisClinical medicine (London, England)2013

Prevalence of use of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) by patients/consumers in the UK: systematic review of surveys.

Paul Posadzki, Leala K Watson, Amani Alotaibi, Edzard Ernst

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Clinical medicine (London, England), 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 98 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
98citing papers in PubMed, 8 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

98 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Aromatherapy for treatment of postoperative nausea and vomiting.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018
    Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Trial
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

38 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

4 authors.

Paul PosadzkiPeninsula Medical School, Exeter, Devon, UK. Paul.Posadzki@pcmd.ac.uk
Leala K Watson
Amani Alotaibi
Edzard Ernst

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This systematic review aimed to estimate the prevalence of use of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) in the UK. Five databases were searched for English language, peer-reviewed surveys published between 1 January 2000 and 7 October 2011. In addition, relevant book chapters and files from our own departmental records were searched by hand. Eighty-nine surveys were included, with a total of 97,222 participants. Most studies were of poor methodological quality. Across surveys on CAM in general, the average one-year prevalence of use of CAM was 41.1% and the average lifetime prevalence was 51.8%. In methodologically sound surveys, the equivalent rates were 26.3% and 44%, respectively. In surveys with response rates >70%, average one-year prevalence was nearly threefold lower than in surveys with response rates between 21% and 50%. Herbal medicine was the most popular CAM, followed by homeopathy, aromatherapy, massage and reflexology. Many patients and consumers in the UK use CAM; healthcare professionals should therefore responsibly advise their patients about the use of CAM.

Indexed as

Complementary TherapiesHealth Care SurveysHumansPatient Acceptance of Health CareUnited Kingdomcomplementary and alternative medicinesurveysystematic review

Identifiers

PMID23681857
PMCPMC4952625

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.