SynthesisFrontiers in medicine2022
Use of Traditional, Complementary and Integrative Medicine During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- The case for data sharing in traditional, complementary, and integrative medicine research.Integrative medicine research · 2025Article
- Prevalence, patterns, drivers, and perceived benefits of herbal medicine use in COVID-19 patients in Qatar.Journal of pharmaceutical policy and practice · 2025Article
- Article
- Use of integrative and complementary practices in Brazil during the COVID-19 pandemic.PloS one · 2024Article
- Traditional, complementary and integrative healthcare: global stakeholder perspective on WHO's current and future strategy.BMJ global health · 2023Review
- Acupuncture as an Additional Method of Rehabilitation Post-COVID-19: a randomized controlled trial.Journal of pharmacopuncture · 2023Article
- Functional Foods: A Promising Strategy for Restoring Gut Microbiota Diversity Impacted by SARS-CoV-2 Variants.Nutrients · 2023Review
- The Development of a Chatbot Technology to Disseminate Post-COVID-19 Information: Descriptive Implementation Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2023Article
- Efficacy and safety of acupuncture treatment for fatigue after COVID-19 infection: study protocol for a pilot randomized sham-controlled trial.Frontiers in neurology · 2023Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Traditional, Complementary and Integrative Medicine (TCIM) has been reported to use for symptom management of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The objective of this review was to identify the overall usage prevalence of TCIM interventions for COVID-19. Methods: Surveys on the general population and observational studies on the COVID-19 patient chart review were located in the search of PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases in September 2021. Observational studies, such as cross-sectional studies, surveys, cohort studies and hospital-based patient case reviews, published in any language, reporting the usage of TCIM in the patients with COVID-19 or the general population during the COVID-19 pandemic were included in this review. Data screening and extraction were performed independently by two reviewers. The reporting quality of the included studies was assessed with the STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement. To conduct a meta-analysis of the usage prevalence of various TCIM interventions, the effect size of the proportion for each intervention was calculated with the inverse variance method. The main outcome was usage prevalence of TCIM interventions among patients with COVID-19 or the general population during the COVID-19 pandemic. Results: A total of 62 studies were included in this review. The overall TCIM usage prevalence was estimated to be 0.64 (95% CI 0.54-0.73). The overall prevalence did not differ between the population-based survey (0.65, 95% CI 0.48-0.81) and the hospital-based patient case review (0.63, 95% CI 0.52-0.73). Statistical heterogeneity and comparatively low quality in reporting were observed, which should be cautiously considered when interpreting the results. Conclusion: Various TCIM interventions were reported to be used with comparatively high frequency. Future international collaborative research might overcome the main limitation of this study, i.e., the heterogeneity of the included data. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=278452, identifier: CRD42021278452.
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.