Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35788539›Full record

SynthesisDrug safety2022

Prevalence of Use of Traditional, Complementary and Alternative Medicine by the General Population: A Systematic Review of National Studies Published from 2010 to 2019.

E Lyn Lee, Noni Richards, Jeff Harrison, Joanne Barnes

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Drug safety, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 63 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
63citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

63 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Development of Mind-Body Interventions for the Emergency Department.Journal of the American College of Emergency Physicians open · 2026
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Regulatory and HTA framework for herbal medicines in Indonesia.Journal of pharmaceutical policy and practice · 2026
    Review
  19. Article
  20. Review

3 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

4 authors.

E Lyn LeeSchool of Pharmacy, University of Auckland, 85 Park Rd, Grafton, Auckland, 1023, New Zealand.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3395-2414
Noni RichardsHe Ako Hiringa, Auckland, New Zealand.
Jeff HarrisonSchool of Pharmacy, University of Auckland, 85 Park Rd, Grafton, Auckland, 1023, New Zealand.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8478-7469
Joanne BarnesSchool of Pharmacy, University of Auckland, 85 Park Rd, Grafton, Auckland, 1023, New Zealand. j.barnes@auckland.ac.nz.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1522-8433

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionTraditional, complementary and alternative medicine (TCAM) refers to a broad range of health practices and products typically not part of the 'conventional medicine' system, and its use is substantial among the general population. TCAM products and therapies may be used in addition to, or instead of, conventional medicine approaches, and some have been associated with adverse reactions or other harms.

objectivesThe aims of this systematic review were to identify and examine recently published national studies globally on the prevalence of TCAM use in the general population, to review the research methods used in these studies and to propose best practices for future studies exploring prevalence of use of TCAM.

methodsMEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO and AMED were searched to identify relevant studies published since 2010. Articles/reports describing the prevalence of TCAM use in a national study among the general population were included. The quality of included studies was assessed using a risk of bias tool developed by Hoy et al. Relevant data were extracted and summarised.

resultsForty studies from 14 countries, comprising 21 national surveys and one cross-national survey, were included. Studies explored the use of TCAM products (e.g. herbal medicines), TCAM practitioners/therapies, or both. Included studies used different TCAM definitions, prevalence time frames and data collection tools, methods and analyses, thereby limiting comparability across studies. The reported prevalence of use of TCAM (products and/or practitioners/therapies) over the previous 12 months was 24-71.3%.

conclusionThe reported prevalence of use of TCAM (products and/or practitioners/therapies) is high, but may underestimate use. Published prevalence data varied considerably, at least in part because studies utilise different data collection tools, methods and operational definitions, limiting cross-study comparisons and study reproducibility. For best practice, comprehensive, detailed data on TCAM exposures are needed, and studies should report an operational definition (including the context of TCAM use, products/practices/therapies included and excluded), publish survey questions and describe the data-coding criteria and analysis approach used.

Indexed as

Complementary TherapiesHumansPrevalenceReproducibility of ResultsSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID35788539
PMCPMC9296440

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.