ArticleScientific reports2025
Frequency of complementary medicine use and attitudes among Iranian patients with chronic diseases.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The study aimed to determine the frequency of the use of complementary medicine (CM) in patients with chronic diseases and its relationship with their attitude towards CM. This cross-sectional study was conducted in Sina Hospital, a general clinical setting located in Tabriz city, Northwest Iran. A total of 400 adult patients with chronic diseases-including cardiac, rheumatologic, endocrine, and nephrological conditions-were recruited using convenience sampling from both specialized outpatient clinics and a traditional medicine unit. Data collection involved structured interviews conducted in clinical settings. Descriptive statistics and bivariate tests were performed, followed by binary logistic regression analysis to identify predictors of CM modality use. According to the result, the most commonly used complementary and alternative Medicine within the past 12 months were Herbal Medicine, Prayer Therapy, Water therapy, Cupping and Massage Therapy with 83, 36, 27, 11, and 8%, respectively. The mean scores of the patients' attitude towards holistic health were higher than their attitude towards the validity of complementary medicine (21.37 vs. 15.88). Logistic regression analysis revealed that belief in holistic health significantly predicted lower odds of using herbal medicine (OR = 0.85, p = .005), prayer therapy (OR = 0.85, p = .018), and water therapy (OR = 0.82, p = .009). Belief in CM's scientific validity was positively associated with prayer therapy use (OR = 1.24, p < .001). Additional predictors varied by modality: increased age and high economic status predicted greater use of prayer and water therapies, whereas gender and education levels showed mixed associations. The use of herbal medicine was common among patients with chronic diseases. Therefore, health care providers should pay attention to the use of herbal medicine by their patients considering their interactions with modern medications, efficacy, and side effects. Given the poor attitude towards the validity of CM, there is a need for community-level education on the use of CM for prescribing it by professional 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.