Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34582473›Full record

ArticlePloS one2021

Prevalence of complementary and alternative medicine despite limited perceived efficacy in patients with rheumatic diseases in Mexico: Cross-sectional study.

Claudia Isabel Caballero-Hernández, Susana Aideé González-Chávez, Adelfia Urenda-Quezada, Greta Cristina Reyes-Cordero, Ingris Peláez-Ballestas, Everardo Álvarez-Hernández, César Pacheco-Tena

Open access · goldAbstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
3.5field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Review
  2. Observational
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Claudia Isabel Caballero-HernándezFacultad de Medicina y Ciencias Biomédicas, Laboratorio PABIOM, Universidad Autónoma de Chihuahua, Chihuahua, México.
Susana Aideé González-ChávezFacultad de Medicina y Ciencias Biomédicas, Laboratorio PABIOM, Universidad Autónoma de Chihuahua, Chihuahua, México.
Adelfia Urenda-QuezadaFacultad de Medicina y Ciencias Biomédicas, Universidad Autónoma de Chihuahua, Chihuahua, México.
Greta Cristina Reyes-CorderoFacultad de Medicina y Ciencias Biomédicas, Universidad Autónoma de Chihuahua, Chihuahua, México.ORCID 0000-0001-6313-133X
Ingris Peláez-BallestasServicio de Reumatología, Hospital General de México "Dr. Eduardo Liceaga", México City, México.
Everardo Álvarez-HernándezServicio de Reumatología, Hospital General de México "Dr. Eduardo Liceaga", México City, México.
César Pacheco-TenaFacultad de Medicina y Ciencias Biomédicas, Laboratorio PABIOM, Universidad Autónoma de Chihuahua, Chihuahua, México.ORCID 0000-0002-0793-8988
Autonomous University of Chihuahua · MXHospital General de México · MX

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionComplementary and alternative medicine (CAM) is frequently used by patients with rheumatic diseases (RD) to improve their symptoms; however, its diversity and availability have increased notably while scientific support for its effectiveness and adverse effects is still scarce.

objectiveTo describe the prevalence and diversity of CAM in patients with RD in Chihuahua, Mexico.

methodsA cross-sectional study was conducted in 500 patients with RD who were interviewed about the use of CAM to treat their disease. The interview included sociodemographic aspects, characteristics of the disease, as well as a description of CAM use, including type, frequency of use, perception of the benefit, communication with the rheumatologist, among others.

resultsThe prevalence of CAM use was reported by 59.2% of patients, which informed a total of 155 different therapies. The herbal CAM group was the most used (31.4%) and included more than 50 different therapies. The use of menthol-based and arnica ointments was highly prevalent (35%). Most patients (62.3%) reported very little or no improvement in their symptoms. Only a fourth of the patients informed the rheumatologist of the use of CAM. The use of CAM was influenced by female sex, university degree, diagnosis delay, lack adherence to the rheumatologist's treatment, family history of RD, and orthopedic devices.

conclusionThe use of CAM in our population is highly prevalent and similar to reports in different populations suggesting a widespread use in many different societies. We found high use of herbal remedies; however, there were many different types suggesting a lack of significant effect. Patients continue using CAM despite a perception of no-effectiveness. Recurrent use of CAM is explained by factors other than its efficacy.

Indexed as

AdultComplementary TherapiesCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMexicoMiddle AgedPatient Acceptance of Health CarePerceptionPhysician-Patient RelationsPhytotherapyPrevalenceRheumatic DiseasesSurveys and QuestionnairesTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID34582473
PMCPMC8478211
OpenAlexW3203945894

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.