SynthesisInternational journal of fertility & sterility2024
The Prevalence of Complementary and Alternative Medicine Use among Infertile Patients: A Global Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in International journal of fertility & sterility, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Utilization of traditional Chinese medicine services and associated factors: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC health services research · 2026Pooled it
- Women's experiences of a medically supervised fasting intervention for infertility: a qualitative study.BMC women's health · 2026Trial
- Perceptions and treatment-seeking experiences for infertility among women in rural South Ethiopia.Scientific reports · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
There is a significant increase in the use of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) by infertile patients. This study aimed to assess the prevalence of CAM use by infertile patients. This review was conducted based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). The required data were obtained by searching English databases (PubMed and Web of Science) as well as Google Scholar as an additional source of records. We included cross-sectional studies published in English journals up to March 2023 that examined the prevalence of CAM use among infertile patients in different countries. The retrieved articles were independently assessed by two reviewers. Discrepancies were resolved by discussion with the intent to reach a consensus. We reviewed 1192 documents. From these, 29 studies were included in this systematic review and meta-analysis. The results of meta-analysis conducted on 32, 804 infertile patients showed a prevalence rate of CAM use between 26.3% [95% confidence interval (CI): 21.7%-31.3%] and 96.1% (95% CI: 95.7%-96.5%) in various countries. The pooled prevalence rate calculated by the random effects model showed that, overall, 54% (95% CI: 46%-61%) of both infertile women and men used CAM, whereas 55% (95% CI: 47%-67%) of infertile women and 29% (95% CI: 17%-41%) of infertile men reported treatment with CAM. More than half of the infertile patients used CAM. Therefore, healthcare practitioners need to be aware of this practice to better provide care for infertile patients. Further studies should examine the reasons for CAM use by infertile patients.
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.