ArticleFamily practice2024
Use and perceived effectiveness of non-pharmacological home remedies for digestive symptoms: a questionnaire-based survey among primary care patients.
Article in Family practice, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Who are the patients who use non-pharmacological home remedies? Cross-sectional study in Switzerland and France.Family practice · 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPatients frequently visit their primary care physician (PCP) for digestive symptoms. We aimed to compile a list of non-pharmacological home remedies (NPHRs) that patients frequently use and find effective so that PCPs can then propose them to their patients with various digestive symptoms.
methodsIn this questionnaire-based survey on the use and perceived effectiveness of NPHRs for digestive symptoms, 50 randomly selected Swiss or French PCPs consecutively recruited 20-25 patients between March 2020 and July 2021. These patients were given a list of 53 NPHRs previously developed by our research team. They were asked whether they used them (Y/N) and whether they considered them to be ineffective, not very effective, moderately effective, or very effective in treating abdominal pain (14 NPHRs), bloating (2), constipation (5), diarrhoea (10), digestion trouble (12), nausea/vomiting (2) and stomach pain (8). We considered NPHRs to be perceived as effective if patients reported that they were moderately or very effective.
resultsA total of 1,012 patients agreed to participate in the study (participation rate = 84.5%, median age = 52 years, women = 61%). The two most frequently used NPHRs were rice cooking water for diarrhoea (29% of patients) and prunes for constipation (22%). The perceived effectiveness of the NPHRs ranged from 82% (fennel infusions for abdominal pain) to 95% (bicarbonate for stomach pain).
conclusionOur data could be useful to PCPs interested in proposing NPHRs to their patients suffering from digestive disorders, and more generally to all PCPs interested in learning more about patients' use of NPHRs in primary care.
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.