ArticlePain practice : the official journal of World Institute of Pain2026
Exploring Pain Researcher and Clinician Perceptions of Complementary, Alternative, and Integrative Medicine: A Large-Scale, International Cross-Sectional Survey.
Article in Pain practice : the official journal of World Institute of Pain, 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionComplementary, alternative, and integrative medicine (CAIM) has gained popularity among patients experiencing pain, used alongside conventional medical treatments. This study aimed to explore the perceptions of pain clinicians and researchers on CAIM interventions.
methodsAn anonymous, online survey was distributed to 46,223 authors who had published pain-related research in MEDLINE-indexed journals. The survey included multiple-choice questions and open-ended sections to gather detailed opinions.
resultsA total of 1024 participants responded, 900 of which were eligible to participate; most identified as either pain researchers (n = 435/900, 48.33%) or both researchers and clinicians (n = 398/900, 44.22%). Many held senior positions (n = 549/892, 61.55%). Among the CAIM modalities, mind-body therapies such as meditation, yoga, and biofeedback were viewed as the most promising for pain prevention, treatment, and management, with 68.47% (n = 569/831) of participants endorsing these approaches. While (n = 341/777, 43.89%) of the respondents believed that most CAIM therapies are safe, only 25.55% (n = 198/775) disagreed with the idea that such therapies are effective. There was broad agreement on the need for more research into CAIM therapies, with 45.88% (n = 356/776) agreeing and 42.53% (n = 330/776) strongly agreeing that further investigation is valuable. Additionally, many respondents supported the inclusion of CAIM training in clinician education, either through formal programs (n = 361/778, 46.40%) or supplementary courses (n = 409/776, 52.71%).
conclusionsMind-body therapies received the most positive feedback, while biofield therapies were met with the most skepticism. These findings highlight the interest in CAIM among pain researchers and clinicians and emphasize the need for more research and education tailored to this area.
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.