Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28376851›Full record

ArticleBMC complementary and alternative medicine2017

Chronic low back pain patients' use of, level of knowledge of and perceived benefits of complementary medicine: a cross-sectional study at an academic pain center.

Julie Dubois, Emmanuelle Scala, Mohamed Faouzi, Isabelle Decosterd, Bernard Burnand, Pierre-Yves Rodondi

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC complementary and alternative medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
3.1field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Julie DuboisInstitute of Social and Preventive Medicine (IUMSP), Lausanne University Hospital, Route de la Corniche 10, 1010, Lausanne, Switzerland. Julie.Dubois@chuv.ch.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9241-0231
Emmanuelle ScalaPain Center, Department of Anesthesiology, Lausanne University Hospital, Rue du Bugnon 46, 1011, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Mohamed FaouziInstitute of Social and Preventive Medicine (IUMSP), Lausanne University Hospital, Route de la Corniche 10, 1010, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Isabelle DecosterdPain Center, Department of Anesthesiology, Lausanne University Hospital, Rue du Bugnon 46, 1011, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Bernard BurnandInstitute of Social and Preventive Medicine (IUMSP), Lausanne University Hospital, Route de la Corniche 10, 1010, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Pierre-Yves RodondiInstitute of Social and Preventive Medicine (IUMSP), Lausanne University Hospital, Route de la Corniche 10, 1010, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine · CHUniversity of Lausanne · CH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundChronic pain patients often use complementary medicine (CM) to alleviate their pain; however, little is known about the use of CM by chronic low back pain (cLBP) patients. We investigated the frequency of use of CM by cLBP patients, the perceived effects of these therapies, patients' knowledge regarding CM, and patient-physician communication regarding CM.

methodA cross-sectional survey was conducted from November 2014 to February 2015. A questionnaire was distributed by physicians to 238 consecutive patients consulting for cLBP at the Pain Center of Lausanne University Hospital, Switzerland. Poisson regression model was used to analyze patients' level of knowledge regarding various CMs, and the logistic regression model was used to assess CM use for cLBP.

resultsThe questionnaire was returned by 168 cLBP patients (response rate: 70.6%). Lifetime prevalence of CM use for cLBP was 77.3%. The most commonly used therapies were osteopathy (48.8%), massage (45.2%) and acupuncture (31.6%), rated for their usefulness on a 0-10 scale as a mean ± SD of 5.4 ± 2.7, 5.9 ± 2.5 and 3.8 ± 3.2, respectively. The CM treatment best known by patients was osteopathy, followed by massage and acupuncture. If their doctors proposed CM as a treatment for cLBP, 78% of participants reported being very or somewhat likely to try CM. Respondents with CM health insurance were more likely to use CM (OR = 2.26; 95%CI: 1.07-4.78; p = 0.031) for cLBP. Respondents having experienced cLBP for more than five years were more likely to use CM to treat their cLBP than respondents having experienced cLBP for one year or less (OR = 2.84; 95%CI: 1.02-7.88; p = 0.044).

conclusionsMore than three-quarters of cLBP patients in our sample did use CM to treat their cLBP. The results showed that the most commonly used therapies were not necessarily the highest rated in terms of perceived usefulness. These results highlight the importance of developing integrative pain centers in which patients may obtain advice regarding CM treatments.

Indexed as

Complementary TherapiesAdultAgedAged, 80 and overChronic PainCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHumansLow Back PainMaleMiddle AgedPain ClinicsSurveys and QuestionnairesSwitzerlandYoung AdultBack painChronic painCommunicationComplementary medicine

Identifiers

PMID28376851
PMCPMC5379639
OpenAlexW2605375424

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.