SynthesisClinical rheumatology1998
Usage of complementary therapies in rheumatology: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Clinical rheumatology, 1998. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.
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
15 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trial
- Green-lipped mussel extract (Perna canaliculus) and glucosamine sulphate in patients with knee osteoarthritis: therapeutic efficacy and effects on gastrointestinal microbiota profiles.Inflammopharmacology · 2013Trial
- Natural Product Dietary Supplement Use by Individuals With Rheumatoid Arthritis: A Scoping Review.Arthritis care & research · 2019Article
- Prevalence and Costs of Complementary and Alternative Medicine among Traumatic Patients in Iran: A Nationwide Population-based Study.Iranian journal of public health · 2018Article
- Traditional and Complementary Medicine Use in Knee Osteoarthritis and its Associated Factors Among Patients in Northeast Peninsular Malaysia.Oman medical journal · 2018Article
- A randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled study of static electric field therapy by high voltage alternating current for active rheumatoid arthritis.Journal of clinical biochemistry and nutrition · 2013Article
- Prospective investigation of complementary and alternative medicine use and subsequent hospitalizations.BMC complementary and alternative medicine · 2008Article
- [Physiotherapeutic and rehabilitation therapy for ankylosing spondylitis. Status quo and are they still necessary in the age of anti-cytokine therapy?].Zeitschrift fur Rheumatologie · 2007Article
- The use of CAM and conventional treatments among primary care consulters with chronic musculoskeletal pain.BMC family practice · 2007Article
- The complexity of complementary medicine: chiropractic for back pain.Clinical rheumatology · 2005Article
- Use of complementary and alternative medicine by arthritis patients in a university hospital clinic serving rheumatology patients in Korea.Rheumatology international · 2003Article
- Complementary evidence?Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine · 2003Article
- Quality, efficacy and safety of complementary medicines: fashions, facts and the future. Part I. Regulation and quality.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2003Review
- Evidence-based complementary medicine: a contradiction in terms?Annals of the rheumatic diseases · 1999Article
- Complementary medicine: too good to be true?Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine · 1999Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Complementary medicine (CM) is more popular than ever before. Rheumatology patients seem particularly keen to try CM. In this paper, surveys on rheumatology patients' use of CM are reviewed. The issues of perceived effectiveness, safety and costs are also addressed. In addition surveys of doctors' attitudes towards CM in rheumatology are summarised. Fourteen surveys on patients' use of CM and three on patients' attitudes towards CM were found and analysed. The results imply that the prevalence of CM varies between 30% and nearly 100%. Overall, patients perceive CM as being moderately effective. The survey contains only few data on adverse events of CM as perceived by these patients; collectively they suggest that adverse events are uncommon. Data on costs are similarly sparse; they imply that expenditure for CM is rarely high. Physicians seem to be more sceptical about CM than are their patients. It is concluded that, on average, CM is frequently used by rheumatology patients. The patients' level of satisfaction with CM is often considerable and few adverse effects are being reported. On the basis of these findings, a rigorous investigation of the effectiveness, safety and costs of CM in rheumatology seems desirable.
Indexed as
Identifiers
9776112What 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.