SynthesisBMC medical informatics and decision making2020
Web-based online resources about adverse interactions or side effects associated with complementary and alternative medicine: a systematic review, summarization and quality assessment.
Synthesis in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 25 citations in OpenAlex.
- Barriers, knowledge, and training related to pharmacists' counselling on dietary and herbal supplements: a systematic review of qualitative studies.BMC health services research · 2021Pooled it
- Trial
- ShenNongDiet: a medicine diet recommendation system based on graph-semantic hybrid retrieval and evidence constraint generation.Chinese medicine · 2026Article
- Herbal Medicines and Drugs Interactions: Cytochrome P450 Responsibility.Current medicinal chemistry · 2026Review
- Observational
- Public knowledge and awareness of drug-herb interactions: A cross-sectional study in Saudi Arabia.Journal of public health research · 2025Article
- Safety of creatine supplementation: analysis of the prevalence of reported side effects in clinical trials and adverse event reports.Journal of the International Society of Sports Nutrition · 2025Article
- An evidence mapping study based on systematic reviews of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) for diabetic retinopathy.Systematic reviews · 2025Article
- Clinical research framework proposal for ketogenic metabolic therapy in glioblastoma.BMC medicine · 2024Review
- Content and quality of YouTube regarding women's health: a scoping review.Korean journal of women health nursing · 2023Article
- The Evaluation of Videos about Branched-Chain Amino Acids Supplements on YouTubeInternational journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Clinical Implications of Herbal Supplements in Conventional Medical Practice: A US Perspective.Cureus · 2022Review
- Herb-Drug Interactions: Worlds Intersect with the Patient at the Center.Medicines (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundGiven an increased global prevalence of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) use, healthcare providers commonly seek CAM-related health information online. Numerous online resources containing CAM-specific information exist, many of which are readily available/accessible, containing information shareable with their patients. To the authors' knowledge, no study has summarized nor assessed the quality of content contained within these online resources for at least a decade, specifically pertaining to information about adverse effects or interactions.
methodsThis study provides summaries of web-based online resources that provide safety information on potential interactions or adverse effects of CAM. Specifically, clinicians are the intended users of these online resources containing patient information which they can then disseminate to their patients. All online resources were assessed for content quality using the validated rating tool, DISCERN.
resultsOf 21 articles identified in our previously published scoping review, 23 online resources were eligible. DISCERN assessments suggests that online resources containing CAM-specific information vary in quality. Summed DISCERN scores had a mean of 56.13 (SD = 10.25) out of 75. Online resources with the highest total DISCERN scores across all questions included Micromedex (68.50), Merck Manual (67.50) and Drugs.com (66.50). Online resources with the lowest total scores included Drug Information (33.00), Caremark Drug Interactions (42.50) and HIV Drug Interactions (43.00). The DISCERN questions that received the highest mean score across all online resources referred to whether the risks were described for each treatment (4.66), whether the aims were clear (4.58), whether the source achieved those aims (4.58), and whether the website referred to areas of uncertainty (4.58). The DISCERN questions that received the lowest mean score across all online resources assessed whether there was discussion about no treatment being used (1.29) and how treatment choices would affect quality of life (2.00).
conclusionThis study provides a comprehensive list of online resources containing CAM-specific information. Informed by the appraisal of these resources, this study provides a summarized list of high quality, evidence-based, online resources about CAM and CAM-related adverse effects. This list of recommended resources can thereby serve as a useful reference for clinicians, researchers, and 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.