ArticlePloS one2025
Perceptions of complementary, alternative, and integrative medicine: A global cross-sectional survey of cardiology researchers and clinicians.
Article in PloS one, 2025. 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.
- Exploring Pain Researcher and Clinician Perceptions of Complementary, Alternative, and Integrative Medicine: A Large-Scale, International Cross-Sectional Survey.Pain practice : the official journal of World Institute of Pain · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundComplementary, alternative, and integrative medicine (CAIM) has been increasing in popularity among patients with cardiovascular illnesses. However, little is known about perceptions of CAIM among cardiology researchers and clinicians. In response, this study aimed to assess the practices, perceptions, and attitudes towards CAIM among cardiology researchers and clinicians.
methodsAn anonymous, digital cross-sectional survey was administered to researchers and clinicians who have published articles in cardiology journals indexed in OVID MEDLINE. The survey was sent to 37,915 researchers and clinicians and included 5-point Likert scales, multiple-choice questions, and open-ended questions. Basic descriptive statistics were drawn from quantitative data, and a thematic content analysis was conducted to analyze open-ended responses.
resultsAmong the 309 respondents, the majority (n = 173, 55.99%) identified themselves as both researchers and clinicians in the field of cardiology. While 45.78% (n = 114) of participants expressed agreement regarding the safety of CAIM therapies, 44.40% (n = 111) disagreed on their efficacy. Most respondents believed in the value of conducting research on CAIM therapies (79.2%, n = 198). Respondents perceived mind-body therapies (57.61%, n = 159) and biologically based practices (47.46%, n = 131) as the most promising interventions for the prevention and treatment of cardiovascular conditions. Biofield therapies were the least favoured for integration into mainstream medical practices (11.93%, n = 29).
conclusionsWhile cardiology researchers and clinicians perceive CAIM therapies to have potential, many are hesitant about integrating such interventions into the current medical system due to a perceived lack of scientific evidence and standardized products. Insights from this study may help establish educational resources for healthcare practitioners.
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.