ReviewJournal of Parkinson's disease2016
Professional ethics in complementary and alternative medicines in management of Parkinson's disease.
Review in Journal of Parkinson's disease, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Challenges in Parkinson's Disease Care-In Light of the COVID-19 Pandemic.Journal of movement disorders · 2023Article
- Review
- Natural Products in Neurodegenerative Diseases: A Great Promise but an Ethical Challenge.International journal of molecular sciences · 2019Review
- Need for Registration and Reporting of Acupuncture Trials in Parkinson's Disease in Korea.Journal of movement disorders · 2017Article
- Parkinson's Disease: From Pathogenesis to Pharmacogenomics.International journal of molecular sciences · 2017Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The practice of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) is not, at present, considered an integral part of conventional medicine. As the popularity of CAM grows and access to information about CAM increases through the media and internet where CAMs are often promoted, patients are at risk of exposure unvalidated information. Therefore, there is a need for physicians to examine objectively the efficacy and safety of CAM, compare it with current medications, and become actively involved in the CAM treatment with patients. In accordance with these needs, this manuscript reviews the utility, scientific evidence, safety and cost-effectiveness of CAM in the treatment of Parkinson's disease (PD). We also address the ethical issues of CAM practices.
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.