Correction: Usage of Complementary Medicine in Switzerland: Results of the Swiss Health Survey 2012 and Development Since 2007.

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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

1. Characteristics of global naturopathic education, regulation, and practice frameworks: results from an international survey.BMC complementary medicine and therapies · 2021
   Article
2. Osteopathy in the French-speaking part of Switzerland: Practitioners' profile and scope of back pain management.PloS one · 2020
   Observational
3. Prevalence and Determinants of Traditional, Complementary and Alternative Medicine Provider Use among Adults from 32 Countries.Chinese journal of integrative medicine · 2018
   Article

Corrections and comments

• Erratum for
  Usage of Complementary Medicine in Switzerland: Results of the Swiss Health Survey 2012 and Development Since 2007.2015

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract