ArticlePloS one2020
Trends and factors of botanical dietary supplement use among US adults with COPD from 1999 to 2016.
Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Unravelling the Therapeutic Potential of Botanicals Against Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD): Molecular Insights and Future Perspectives.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2022Review
- The trends of complementary alternative medicine use among cancer patients.BMC complementary medicine and therapies · 2021Article
- Chemometric-Guided Approaches for Profiling and Authenticating Botanical Materials.Frontiers in nutrition · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe potential effects of botanical dietary supplements (BDS) in the treatment of asthma have been proposed. However, the evidence of the effects of BDS use among patients with COPD is limited. The objective of our study was to exam the trends and effects of BDS use among US adults with COPD.
methodsA serial, cross-sectional study was conducted by using data of the NHANSE from 1999 to 2016 (n = 53,348). COPD (n = 2,580) was identified by using self-reported diagnosis history, and any BDS use was identified in the past 30 days. The prevalence of BDS use was calculated for respondents with and without COPD. Simple linear regression models were applied to test for trends in BDS use. Multiple logistic regression models were used to identify the factors of BDS use and patients' clinical outcomes, including all-cause hospitalization and abnormal hemoglobin levels, associated with BDS use. The results were weighted to represent national estimates.
resultsThe prevalence of BDS use was greater among participants who had COPD compared to the referent group (mean 16.77% vs. 15.11%, p = 0.044). The trend of BDS use decreased from 1999 through 2016 in COPD group (p = 0.0023), but the trend remained stable in the non-COPD group (P>0.05). Results of multivariate logistic regression models showed that patients with higher family income (≥100% FPL) and graduated from college were more likely to use BDS compared with non-users. BDS use was associated with a lower likelihood of having all-cause hospitalization (adjusted odds ratio = 0.64; 95% CI 0.45-0.92) and abnormal levels of hemoglobin (adjusted odds ratio = 0.67; 95% CI 0.49-0.92) among adult COPD patients, after adjusting for covariates.
conclusionsThe overall use of BDS decreased during 1999 through 2016 for US adults with COPD. The potential benefit of these supplemental medications use for clinical outcomes might exist for adult COPD patients.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.