Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28794663›Full record

ArticleAdvances in medical education and practice2017

Physician perspectives on education, training, and implementation of complementary and alternative medicine.

Sejal J Patel, Kathi J Kemper, Joseph P Kitzmiller

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Advances in medical education and practice, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

30 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. The use of complementary and alternative medicine for functional gastrointestinal disorders among the saudi population.Saudi pharmaceutical journal : SPJ : the official publication of the Saudi Pharmaceutical Society · 2024
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Sejal J PatelCollege of Public Health, The Ohio State University.
Kathi J KemperCenter for Integrative Health and Wellness, The Ohio State Wexner University Medical Center.
Joseph P KitzmillerDepartment of Biological Chemistry and Pharmacology, College of Medicine, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Over recent decades, the demand for complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) has continued to rise in the US. Like the practice of traditional Western medicine, CAM is associated with not only significant health benefits but also significant risks. Unlike traditional Western medicine, however, much of CAM use is less regulated and often occurs unbeknownst to a patient's medical doctor. The use of herbals, dietary supplements, and over-the-counter (OTC) medications can result in adverse effects, and many significant interactions can occur when their use is combined with allopathic medications. Even the more peripheral CAM practices (eg, acupuncture, massage, yoga, and Reiki) have associated risk (eg, adverse effects or worsening of physical injury and conditions). There is, however, impetus for change: both patients and physicians favor increasing physician knowledge of CAM and the synergistic implementation of CAM into routine clinical practice. Although improvement has been achieved from contemporary physician educational efforts, recently published results from patient and physician surveys strongly indicate that additional effort to increase physician knowledge of CAM is needed. Utilizing a 37-item survey and convenience-sampling methodology, we collected detailed information from 114 physicians, fellows, and residents from the Ohio State University Medical Center regarding impediments to increasing physician knowledge of CAM and its implementation in routine clinical practice. The aggregate results of our survey data showed that most physicians 1) desired to increase their knowledge of CAM, 2) believed that less than half of their patients were spontaneously reporting their use of CAM therapies, 3) were not aware of available evidence-based resources on CAM, 4) preferred case-based lectures for learning about CAM, and 5) reported insufficient time during patient encounters as the primary barrier for increasing the implementation of CAM in routine clinical practice.

Indexed as

attitudesclinical practiceholistic medicineintegrative medicinesurvey

Identifiers

PMID28794663
PMCPMC5536234

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.