Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32727531›Full record

ArticleBMC complementary medicine and therapies2020

eHealth technologies assisting in identifying potential adverse interactions with complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) or standalone CAM adverse events or side effects: a scoping review.

Jeremy Y Ng, Maryam Mooghali, Vanessa Munford

Open access · goldAbstract readScoping Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC complementary medicine and therapies, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.2field-weighted citation impact, top 18% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Review
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.

Jeremy Y NgDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, Faculty of Health Sciences, McMaster University, Michael G. DeGroote Centre for Learning and Discovery, Room 2112, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, Ontario, L8S 4K1, Canada. ngjy2@mcmaster.ca.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0031-5873
Maryam MooghaliDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, Faculty of Health Sciences, McMaster University, Michael G. DeGroote Centre for Learning and Discovery, Room 2112, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, Ontario, L8S 4K1, Canada.
Vanessa MunfordDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, Faculty of Health Sciences, McMaster University, Michael G. DeGroote Centre for Learning and Discovery, Room 2112, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, Ontario, L8S 4K1, Canada.
Impact · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWhile there are several existing eHealth technologies for drug-drug interactions and stand-alone drug adverse effects, it appears that considerably less attention is focussed on that of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM). Despite poor knowledge of their potential interactions and side effects, many patients use CAM. This justifies the need to identify what eHealth technologies are assisting in identifying potential 1) adverse drug interactions with CAM, 2) adverse CAM-CAM interactions or 3) standalone CAM adverse events or side effects.

methodsA scoping review was conducted to identify eHealth technologies assisting in identifying potential adverse interactions with CAM or standalone CAM adverse events or side effects, following Arksey and O'Malley's five-stage scoping review framework. MEDLINE, EMBASE, and AMED databases and the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health website were systematically searched. Eligible articles had to have assessed or referenced an eHealth technology assisting in identifying potential one or more of the three aforementioned items. We placed no eligibility restrictions on type of eHealth technology.

resultsSearches identified 3467 items, of which 2763 were unique, and 2674 titles and abstracts were eliminated, leaving 89 full-text articles to be considered. Of those, 48 were not eligible, leaving a total of 41 articles eligible for review. From these 41 articles, 69 unique eHealth technologies meeting our eligibility criteria were identified. Themes which emerged from our analysis included the following: the lack of recent reviews of CAM-related healthcare information; a large number of databases; and the presence of government adverse drug/event surveillance.

conclusionsThe present scoping review is the first, to our knowledge, to provide a descriptive map of the literature and eHealth technologies relating to our research question. We highlight that while an ample number of resources are available to healthcare providers, researchers, and patients, we caution that the quality and update frequency for many of these resources vary widely, and until formally assessed, remain unknown. We identify that a need exists to conduct an updated and systematically-searched review of CAM-related healthcare or research resources, as well as develop guidance documents associated with the development and evaluation of CAM-related eHealth technologies.

Indexed as

Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting SystemsComplementary TherapiesDrug-Related Side Effects and Adverse ReactionsHumansMobile ApplicationsTelemedicineAdverse eventsComplementary and alternative medicineeHealtheHealth technologiesHerb-drug interactionsmHealthScoping reviewSide effects

Identifiers

PMID32727531
PMCPMC7388448
OpenAlexW3045765857

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.