ArticleBMJ public health2026
Use of traditional, complementary and integrative medicine in Berlin: baseline results from a substudy of the German National Cohort (NAKO).
Article in BMJ public health, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Traditional, complementary and integrative medicine (TCIM) is widely used yet population-based data on user characteristics remain scarce in Germany. We aimed to describe patterns of non-pharmacological TCIM use and user profiles in the German National Cohort (NAKO). Method: The NAKO baseline assessment (2017-2019) at the Berlin inner-city study centre included a self-report questionnaire on the use of seven non-pharmacological TCIM modalities in the last year. TCIM user groups were defined a priori using expert-based knowledge and exploratively through hierarchical clustering. Groups were compared descriptively based on sociodemographic factors and medical history. Associations with chronic pain disorders, pain medications, mental health indicators and time-limiting factors were analysed for the binary and ordinal outcomes of TCIM use. Results: Among 1970 participants, 1029 (52.2%) used TCIM in the last year, most commonly meditation (26.8%), chiropractic (24.8%) and yoga (21.8%). Compared with never users, frequent TCIM users were more often female (63.5%), reported slightly higher rates of mental health problems (7.6% and 15.2% vs 6.1%) and more frequent chronic conditions, including osteoarthritis (10.6% and 11.1% vs 2.7%) and back pain (26.6% and 31.7% vs 16.0%). Supplement use was strikingly more common among TCIM users (43.7% vs 20.9%). Conclusion: In this population-based Berlin sample, TCIM users combined higher prevalence of chronic disease with greater engagement in preventive practices, notably supplement use, suggesting an attempt to seek solutions for chronic problems alongside conventional medical care or a preventive health orientation. Integrating TCIM awareness into prevention and chronic care could better align clinical practice with already existing patients' usage.
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.