Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30024952›Full record

ArticlePloS one2018

Justifications for using complementary and alternative medicine reported by persons with musculoskeletal conditions: A narrative literature synthesis.

Nadia Corp, Joanne L Jordan, Peter R Croft

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
–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

16 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Online cancer forums and complementary and alternative medicine in cancer care: effects of ehealth literacy and psychological distress on use and attitudes.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. 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

3 authors.

Nadia CorpArthritis Research UK Primary Care Centre, Research Institute for Primary Care and Health Sciences, Keele University, Keele, Staffordshire, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-6758-9513
Joanne L JordanArthritis Research UK Primary Care Centre, Research Institute for Primary Care and Health Sciences, Keele University, Keele, Staffordshire, United Kingdom.
Peter R CroftArthritis Research UK Primary Care Centre, Research Institute for Primary Care and Health Sciences, Keele University, Keele, Staffordshire, United Kingdom.

Funding

Arthritis Research UK
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundComplementary and alternative medicine (CAM) is very popular with patients frequently combining it with orthodox health care. The high prevalence of CAM use and satisfaction with CAM reported by patients directly challenges an orthodox system that can only approve such use if it results from the application of biomedical concepts and science. Studies highlighting this as a cultural, sociological and historical phenomenon emphasise the value of choice for consumers of health care. Musculoskeletal conditions typify common problems for which the effectiveness of orthodox care is often unclear. We postulated that the reasons people give for using or not using CAM for musculoskeletal conditions, would therefore indicate the full range of expectations that people have of health care. Furthermore, these reasons would indicate how much people feel orthodox health care is or is not meeting their expectations. Therefore, this study aims to investigate people's reasons for choosing or avoiding CAM for non-traumatic musculoskeletal conditions.

methodsA systematic search and narrative synthesis was conducted of published qualitative and quantitative studies related to CAM and non-traumatic musculoskeletal conditions.

resultsWe identified 169 relevant papers detailing 152 separate studies, from which 1486 justifications were extracted concerning CAM use. Content analysis resulted in 11 distinct categories across four themes: practical aspects of care, clinical effectiveness, non-clinical outcomes of care, and a person's philosophy of illness and care. People provided similar rationales for both using and avoiding CAM, emphasising that, whilst CAM is perceived by many patients with musculoskeletal conditions to fill gaps in care (such as practitioner time or quality of the therapeutic relationship), orthodox care also seeks to deliver these aspects of care. However, people who used CAM also highlighted its alignment with their general philosophy and ideas about illness and health care, and often emphasised CAM's capacity to give them control over their condition and its treatment.

conclusionCurrently, CAM appears to have a significant role for patients with common painful long-term conditions in providing choices to enable individual needs to be met.

Indexed as

AdultComplementary TherapiesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedMusculoskeletal DiseasesSurveys and QuestionnairesYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID30024952
PMCPMC6053199

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.