Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25708665›Full record

ArticleSpinal cord2015

Use of complementary and alternative medicine in persons with spinal cord injury in Switzerland: a survey study.

J Pannek, S Pannek-Rademacher, J Wöllner

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Spinal cord, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
6.4field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 25 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
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 2 institutions in 2 countries.

J PannekNeuro-Urology, Swiss Paraplegic Centre, Nottwil, Switzerland.
S Pannek-RademacherSHI Homöopathische Praxis, Zug, Switzerland.
J WöllnerNeuro-Urology, Swiss Paraplegic Centre, Nottwil, Switzerland.
Swiss Paraplegic Center · CHPraxis · EE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

STUDY

designQuestionnaire-based survey study.

objectivesTo evaluate the use of and the satisfaction with complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) techniques in patients with spinal cord injury (SCI).

settingRehabilitation Center, Switzerland.

methodsBetween May and September 2014, all patients with chronic (>1 year) SCI attending the urologic outpatient clinic were asked to fill in a questionnaire regarding the use of CAM.

resultsOf the 103 participants (66 men and 37 women), 73.8% stated that they have used some form of CAM since SCI, with acupuncture and homeopathy being the two techniques that were used most frequently (31% each). The most common indications for CAM use were pain and urinary tract infections (UTIs). CAM was used supplementarily rather than exclusively. Overall satisfaction (85.1%) as well as satisfaction rates for the different indications (pain: 85%; UTI: 90.5%) and for the most frequently used forms of CAM (homeopathy: 90.6%; acupuncture: 78.1%) were high.

conclusionAccording to our data, there is a demand for adjunctive CAM procedures for the treatment of medical complications by persons with SCI. CAM led to high satisfaction levels. On the basis of these results, future research should systematically evaluate the therapeutic potential of the most popular CAM techniques, for example, acupuncture and homeopathy, for the treatment of secondary medical complications of SCI.

Indexed as

Patient SatisfactionAcupuncture TherapyAdolescentAdultAgedComplementary TherapiesFemaleHealth Care SurveysHomeopathyHumansMaleMiddle AgedPain ManagementSpinal Cord InjuriesSwitzerlandUrinary Tract Infections

Identifiers

PMID25708665
OpenAlexW1982194236

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.