Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30733573›Full record

SynthesisScientific reports2019

Disclosure of complementary medicine use to medical providers: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

H Foley, A Steel, H Cramer, J Wardle, J Adams

Open access · goldAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Scientific reports, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 113 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
113citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
37.3field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

113 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 236 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Stakeholder priorities for advancing integrative oncology across a pluralistic health system: a qualitative study from Singapore.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Diagnosis, care pathways, and Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) use among digestive cancer patients in Benin: a qualitative study.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026
    Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Observational
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

53 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

5 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.

H FoleyFaculty of Health, University of Technology Sydney, Ultimo, Australia. hope.m.foley@student.uts.edu.au.ORCID 0000-0003-4901-8300
A SteelFaculty of Health, University of Technology Sydney, Ultimo, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-6643-9444
H CramerFaculty of Health, University of Technology Sydney, Ultimo, Australia.
J WardleFaculty of Health, University of Technology Sydney, Ultimo, Australia.
J AdamsFaculty of Health, University of Technology Sydney, Ultimo, Australia.
University of Technology Sydney · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Concomitant complementary medicine (CM) and conventional medicine use is frequent and carries potential risks. Yet, CM users frequently neglect to disclose CM use to medical providers. Our systematic review examines rates of and reasons for CM use disclosure to medical providers. Observational studies published 2003-2016 were searched (AMED, CINAHL, MEDLINE, PsycINFO). Eighty-six papers reporting disclosure rates and/or reasons for disclosure/non-disclosure of CM use to medical providers were reviewed. Fourteen were selected for meta-analysis of disclosure rates of biologically-based CM. Overall disclosure rates varied (7-80%). Meta-analysis revealed a 33% disclosure rate (95%CI: 24% to 43%) for biologically-based CM. Reasons for non-disclosure included lack of inquiry from medical providers, fear of provider disapproval, perception of disclosure as unimportant, belief providers lacked CM knowledge, lacking time, and belief CM was safe. Reasons for disclosure included inquiry from medical providers, belief providers would support CM use, belief disclosure was important for safety, and belief providers would give advice about CM. Disclosure appears to be influenced by the nature of patient-provider communication. However, inconsistent definitions of CM and lack of a standard measure for disclosure created substantial heterogeneity between studies. Disclosure of CM use to medical providers must be encouraged for safe, effective patient care.

Indexed as

Complementary TherapiesHealth PersonnelTruth DisclosureCross-Sectional StudiesHumansPrevalencePublication Bias

Identifiers

PMID30733573
PMCPMC6367405
OpenAlexW2919701522

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.