ArticleBMC complementary medicine and therapies2023
A comparative analysis of complementary therapies use among patients attending diabetic clinics in Taiwan: 2007 vs. 2023.
Article in BMC complementary medicine and therapies, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Empowering Patients Through Literacy: A Randomized Controlled Trial of an Educational App for Evaluating Complementary Therapies in Diabetes Management.Nursing open · 2026Trial
- Development and pilot testing of an empowerment-based educational app for complementary therapies in diabetes: a Delphi study.International journal of nursing studies advances · 2025Article
- Breaking the silence: factors influencing complementary therapy disclosure among diabetic outpatients in Taiwan.BMC complementary medicine and therapies · 2025Article
- Comparing Perspectives on Traditional and Complementary Medicine Use in Oncology: Insights from Healthcare Professionals and Oncology Patients in Western Mexico.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundWe conducted a comparative study to examine the differences in the use of complementary therapies (CT) among patients who attended diabetic clinics for follow-up treatment between 2007 and 2023 in Taiwan.
methodsThis study employed a cross-sectional survey design to recruit individuals with diabetes from two regions (northern and southern) of Taiwan. A total of 183 and 307 participants were included in the surveys of 2007 and 2023, respectively. The data were analyzed using IBM SPSS Statistics version 28.0 to compare the survey results between the two time periods.
resultsAmong the various CTs, nutritional supplements remained the most prevalent, with a significant increase in usage from 68.3% in 2007 to 89.9% in 2023. Conversely, other therapies, such as Chinese herbal medicines, manipulative-based therapies, supernatural healings, and bioelectromagnetic-based therapies, demonstrated a significant decrease in usage between the two time periods. Furthermore, the disclosure rate of CT use to healthcare professionals remained persistently low, with only 24.6% in 2007 and a slight increase to 30.3% in 2023.
conclusionThe significant rise in the use of nutritional supplements in conjunction with conventional medicine, without adequate monitoring and guidance from healthcare professionals, poses a substantial risk of unregulated blood sugar control, compromised diabetes management, and potential harm to health outcomes.
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.