ArticlePaediatrics & child health
The use of natural health products by paediatric patients in respite care.
Article in Paediatrics & child health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Study of Natural Products Adverse Reactions (SONAR) in Adults with Mental Health Conditions: A Cross-Sectional Study.Drug safety · 2021Article
- Use and perceived effectiveness of complementary health approaches in children.Paediatrics & child health · 2018Article
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 at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo determine the use and potential interactions of natural health products (NHPs) with conventional medications in children with life-limiting illnesses.
methodsThe present study was a retrospective medical record review of palliative care patients <18 years of age who were admitted for respite care to a Canadian paediatric hospice between January 1, 2008 and December 31, 2013. The NHPs were identified according to Health Canada's inclusion criteria.
resultsA total of 106 children were included in the present study. Eighty-two (77.4%) had used one or more NHPs: 60 (56%) used vitamins and minerals; 45 (42.5%) used other products including probiotics, omega-3, organic acids and essential fatty acids; 34 (32.1%) used everyday consumer products; 12 (11.3%) used herb or plant-based remedies; and one (0.9%) used homeopathic remedies. Thirty-nine potential NHP-medication and 10 potential NHP-NHP interactions were identified. A considerable number of patients (n=54) used at least one medication and NHP, or two NHPs with potential interactions. The most common type of interaction was pharmacokinetic: decreasing blood concentrations of the medication, NHP or both (43.9% of NHP users); and enhancing the blood concentration of an NHP for NHP-NHP interactions (22% of NHP users).
conclusionA high proportion of patients in respite care use NHPs. Most used NHPs and medications that have potential interactions, although there were no adverse clinical manifestations in the present study. It is important to educate health care professionals about NHPs, the evidence available and lack thereof. This could reduce the most serious interactions and improve the alliance between parents and health care providers to balance the potential risks and benefits of NHPs.
Indexed as
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.