ReviewDialogues in clinical neuroscience2018
Alternative and complementary approaches in psychiatry: beliefs versus evidence.
Review in Dialogues in clinical neuroscience, 2018. 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.
- Probing the Molecular Mechanisms of Kratom's Antipsychotic Effects through a Multi-modal Computational Approach.Current pharmaceutical design · 2025Article
- A systematic review on the use of phytotherapy in managing clinical depression.BioImpacts : BI · 2025Review
- Current Therapeutic Strategies for the Management of Benzodiazepine (BZD) Withdrawal Syndrome: A Review.Current topics in medicinal chemistry · 2024Review
- Complementary and Alternative Medicines Used by Middle-Aged to Older Taiwanese Adults to Cope with Stress during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Cross-Sectional Survey.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Current Research on Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) in the Treatment of Major Depressive Disorder: An Evidence-Based Review.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
While the legitimacy of medical treatments is more and more questioned, one sees a paradoxical increase in nonconventional approaches, notably so in psychiatry. Over time, approaches that were considered valuable by the scientific community were found to be inefficacious, while other approaches, labelled as alternative or complementary, were finally discovered to be useful in a few indications. From this observation, we propose to classify therapies as orthodox (scientifically validated) or heterodox (scientifically not validated). To illustrate these two categories, we discuss the place, the role, the interest, and also the potential risks of nonconventional approaches in the present practice of psychiatry.
Indexed as
Identifiers
30581290PMC6296392What 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.