SynthesisSystematic reviews2022
Acceptance and use of complementary and alternative medicine among medical specialists: a 15-year systematic review and data synthesis.
Synthesis in Systematic reviews, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 42 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
42 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Comparative Effect of Conventional and Non-Conventional Over-the-Counter Treatments for Male Androgenetic Alopecia: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.International journal of molecular sciences · 2025Pooled it
- The Effect of Ginseng Supplementation on Lipid Profile: GRADE-assessed Systematic Review and Dose-response Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.Current pharmaceutical design · 2024Pooled it
- Trial
- Development of Mind-Body Interventions for the Emergency Department.Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open · 2026Article
- Barriers to Long COVID Care in the U.S.: An Application of Levesque et al.'s Access Framework.Health care analysis : HCA : journal of health philosophy and policy · 2026Article
- Characterization of Isoorientin and Paeoniflorin as Botanical Glucocorticoid Receptor Modulators from White Peony and Chasteberry.Nutrients · 2026Article
- Traditional, Complementary, and Alternative Medicine for Self-Care in Chronic Neck and Shoulder Pain: A Scoping Review.Nursing reports (Pavia, Italy) · 2026Review
- Article
- Prevalence of Complementary and Alternative Medicine Use in Fracture Patients: a Tertiary Trauma Center Observation.Journal of epidemiology and global health · 2025Observational
- Knowledge of Dietary Supplements and Attitudes Towards Complementary Medicine Among University Students: A Cross-Sectional Study.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Global research funding for traditional, complementary and integrative medicine.Bulletin of the World Health Organization · 2025Article
- "It's a reality brought to us by the patients": a qualitative study on general practitioners' views on and experience with complementary medicine in Switzerland.BMC primary care · 2025Article
- Exploring the intersection of brain-computer interfaces and traditional, complementary, and integrative medicine.Integrative medicine research · 2025Article
- Yangke powder alleviates OVA-induced allergic asthma by inhibiting the PI3K/AKT/NF-κB signaling pathway.Chinese medicine · 2025Article
- Integrating Complementary and Alternative Medicine into General Practice Training: A Regional Survey in South Tyrol.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Evaluation of Knowledge, Attitude, and Practice of Iranian Medical Students Toward Complementary and Alternative Medicine: A Cross-Sectional Survey.Health science reports · 2025Article
- Paging Dr. Google: Characterizing Direct-to-Consumer Digital Advertisements From Oncology Treatment Centers.Cureus · 2025Article
- Use and experienced effectiveness of non-pharmacological treatments for chronic spinal cord injury related pain in The Netherlands: A cross-sectional survey.The journal of spinal cord medicine · 2025Article
- Language models for data extraction and risk of bias assessment in complementary medicine.NPJ digital medicine · 2025Article
- Bridging the gap: attitudes and practices toward complementary and alternative medicine among oncology patients and healthcare professionals in Croatia.Frontiers in psychology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundComplementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) has gained popularity among the general population, but its acceptance and use among medical specialists have been inconclusive. This systematic review aimed to identify relevant studies and synthesize survey data on the acceptance and use of CAM among medical specialists.
methodsWe conducted a systematic literature search in PubMed and Scopus databases for the acceptance and use of CAM among medical specialists. Each article was assessed by two screeners. Only survey studies relevant to the acceptance and use of CAM among medical specialists were reviewed. The pooled prevalence estimates were calculated using random-effects meta-analyses. This review followed both PRISMA and SWiM guidelines.
resultsOf 5628 articles published between 2002 and 2017, 25 fulfilled the selection criteria. Ten medical specialties were included: Internal Medicine (11 studies), Pediatrics (6 studies), Obstetrics and Gynecology (6 studies), Anesthesiology (4 studies), Surgery (3 studies), Family Medicine (3 studies), Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation (3 studies), Psychiatry and Neurology (2 studies), Otolaryngology (1 study), and Neurological Surgery (1 study). The overall acceptance of CAM was 52% (95%CI, 42-62%). Family Medicine reported the highest acceptance, followed by Psychiatry and Neurology, Neurological Surgery, Obstetrics and Gynecology, Pediatrics, Anesthesiology, Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Internal Medicine, and Surgery. The overall use of CAM was 45% (95% CI, 37-54%). The highest use of CAM was by the Obstetrics and Gynecology, followed by Family Medicine, Psychiatry and Neurology, Pediatrics, Otolaryngology, Anesthesiology, Internal Medicine, Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, and Surgery. Based on the studies, meta-regression showed no statistically significant difference across geographic regions, economic levels of the country, or sampling methods.
conclusionAcceptance and use of CAM varied across medical specialists. CAM was accepted and used the most by Family Medicine but the least by Surgery. Findings from this systematic review could be useful for strategic harmonization of CAM and conventional medicine practice. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42019125628.
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.