ArticlePharmacy practice
A systematic review of community pharmacist practices in complementary medicine.
Article in Pharmacy practice. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Primary health care roles of community pharmacists in low- and middle-income countries: a mixed methods systematic review.BMC health services research · 2025Pooled it
- Developing a framework for pharmaceutical care practices of herbal and dietary supplements in hospital settings: a mixed methods approach.BMC complementary medicine and therapies · 2026Article
- Addressing activities related to food supplements in European pharmacists' codes of ethics: textual analysis and proposals for ethical standards.BMC medical ethics · 2026Article
- Assessment of Knowledge and Attitudes of Physicians and Pharmacists on Probiotics: A Cross-Sectional Survey.Turkish journal of pharmaceutical sciences · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The people who use complementary medicines (CMs) believe that these medicines are safe and harmless. They could easily access CMs like herbal or traditional medicines in community pharmacies. Therefore, community pharmacists are important professionals in advising the safe choices of CMs and providing evidence-based information for customers to decrease adverse effects of CMs. Objectives: To systematically review knowledge, attitude, and practices of community pharmacists about CMs, and the factors associated with CM practices of dispensing, recommending and counseling patients, and answering the patients' queries. Method: An electronic search was performed with four databases: PubMed, Scopus, SpringerLink and ScienceDirect, from 1990 to 19th May 2022. The inclusion criteria were studies 1) about knowledge, attitude, and/or practices of community pharmacists about CMs, 2) written in English, 3) conducted with quantitative methods, and 4) able to retrieve full text. Results: Twenty-three studies were included in this systematic review. Some studies showed that less than half of the pharmacists asked or counselled about CMs to their patients and answered the patients' queries about CMs. Only 20% of the pharmacists did report CM side-effects. Training or education about CMs was a common factor associated with the CM practice of dispensing, recommending, counseling, and answering the patients' queries about CMs. CMs recommended most by community pharmacists were vitamins & minerals, food or dietary supplements, fish oil and probiotics. The most common dispensed CMs were vitamins & minerals, herbs, food or dietary supplements, fish oil and essential oils. Lacks of reliable information sources and scientific evidence were common barriers for the CM practices. Being less expensive than conventional medicines motivated the pharmacists to recommend and discuss about CMs. The community pharmacists that participated in included studies suggested strengthening CM trainings and highlight the pharmacist role in CM therapy. Conclusion: A high percentage of community pharmacists did dispense CMs to their patients, while a low percentage of the pharmacists did report CM side effects. Pharmacists were most comfortable recommending and responding the patients' CM queries. Training or education about CMs associated with CM dispensing, recommending, discussing, and answering the patients' queries about CMs was recommended.
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.