Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30804711›Full record

ArticleClinical and molecular allergy : CMA2019

Use of complementary medicine among patients with allergic rhinitis: an Italian nationwide survey.

G Bonizzoni, M Caminati, E Ridolo, M Landi, M T Ventura, C Lombardi, G Senna, M Crivellaro, F Gani

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical and molecular allergy : CMA, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.0field-weighted citation impact, top 28% 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Knowledge and Perception of Facial Candling for Allergic Rhinitis among University Staff and Students.Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM · 2020
    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

9 authors at 7 institutions in 2 countries.

G BonizzoniAllergy Service AOU San Luigi Hospital Orbassano, Turin, Italy.
M Caminati2Asthma Center and Allergy Unit and Department of Medicine, Verona University Hospital, Piazzale Scuro, 37134 Verona, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-7383-1487
E Ridolo3Experimental and Clinical Medicine, University of Parma, Parma, Italy.
M LandiNational Health Care System, Turin, Italy.
M T Ventura5Department of Interdisciplinary Medicine, University of Bari, Bari, Italy.
C Lombardi6Department Unit of Allergology and Respiratory Diseases, Fondazione Poliambulanza Hospital Institute, Brescia, Italy.
G Senna2Asthma Center and Allergy Unit and Department of Medicine, Verona University Hospital, Piazzale Scuro, 37134 Verona, Italy.
M Crivellaro7Department of Cardiac, Thoracic and Vascular Sciences, University of Padua, Padua, Italy.
F GaniAllergy Service AOU San Luigi Hospital Orbassano, Turin, Italy.
Ospedale San Luigi Gonzaga · ITUniversity of Verona · ITFondazione Poliambulanza Istituto Ospedaliero · ITUniversity of Bari Aldo Moro · ITUniversity of Padua · ITUniversity of Parma · ITZorginstituut Nederland · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundA growing use of complementary alternative medicine (CAM) has been found in Europe as well in Italy for chronic diseases, including the allergic rhinitis. The study aims at investigating the prevalence and the pattern of use of CAM amongst patient with allergic rhinitis.

methodsA 12-item questionnaire was developed by a panel of experts and administered to patients with moderate/severe allergic rhinitis consecutively referring during the study time-frame to seven allergy clinics placed all around Italy. The items covered several topics including reason for choosing CAM, its clinical efficacy, schedule of treatment, costs, type of therapy.

resultsOverall 359 questionnaires were analysed. 20% of patients declared CAM use. A significant correlation between the use of CAM and female sex (p < 0.01) and with a higher level of education (p < 0.01) was observed. CAM users were adults (36% in the range between 20 and 40 years and 32% between 41 and 60 years). Youngsters (< 20 years) (7%) and elderly (> 60) (25%) less frequently used CAM.The most used type of CAM was homoeopathy (77% of patients). 60% of users would recommend CAM despite a poor clinical efficacy according to 67% of them.

conclusionsAlthough no evidence supports CAM efficacy and safety, the number of patients who relies on it is not negligible. As allergic rhinitis is not a trivial disease, the use of CAM as the only treatment for it should be discouraged at any level, but by general practitioner and specialist in particular.

Indexed as

Allergic rhinitisComplementary medicine

Identifiers

PMID30804711
PMCPMC6373013
OpenAlexW2937483175

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.