ArticleEpidemiology (Sunnyvale, Calif.)2015
Patterns of Variation in Botanical Supplement Use among Hispanics and Latinos in the United States.
Article in Epidemiology (Sunnyvale, Calif.), 2015. 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: The prevalence of botanical supplement use among Hispanics/Latinos in the United States varies widely, thwarting efforts to understand patterns of use in these rapidly growing populations. In this systematic review of the literature, we present an analysis of patterns of botanical supplement use across available studies including Hispanics/Latinos in the United States, 1998-2011. Methods: Search strategies included CINAHL, EMBASE, Global Health, CAB Abstracts, AMED and Medline resulting in 33 studies reporting botanical supplement prevalence among Hispanic/Latino adults, limiting studies to those with similar outcomes and Hispanic/Latino sample ≥1%. Results: Median prevalence of botanical supplement use among Hispanics/Latinos varied from 12% for ≤30 days of use to 27% for 6-12 months of use and 45% for 2+ years of use. Variation in prevalence of botanical use among Hispanics/Latinos was largely dependent on study design factors, particularly sampling strategy and target population. Patterns associated with higher median prevalence included regional (42%, 95% CI: 35, 57%) vs. national (15%; 8, 22%) samples, convenience (45%; 35, 63%) vs. probability sampling (21%; 10, 42%), and majority Hispanic/Latino (45%; 32, 67%) vs. majority non-Hispanic/Latino (21%; 15, 42%) samples. Studies targeting Hispanic/Latino populations with botanical assessments specific to these populations resulted in higher prevalence estimates (49% vs. 18%). The most common botanicals reported by Hispanics/Latinos across studies were chamomile, aloe, and garlic. Conclusions: Although studies with probability sampling are less affected by selection bias, most target the general US population and exclude botanical supplements common among Hispanic/Latino populations. Improved estimates of botanical supplement use among Hispanics/Latinos require culturally-relevant assessment instruments and strategies. Assessments of botanical supplement use in other ethnic populations, e.g., among immigrants from Asian countries, are also likely to suffer from information bias.
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.