Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33686454›Full record

SynthesisEuropean journal of clinical pharmacology2021

Global prevalence and types of complementary and alternative medicines use amongst adults with diabetes: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Abdulaziz S Alzahrani, Malcolm J Price, Sheila M Greenfield, Vibhu Paudyal

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in European journal of clinical pharmacology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 43 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
43citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

43 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Abdulaziz S AlzahraniSchool of Pharmacy, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, Sir Robert Aitken Institute for Medical Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Malcolm J PriceInstitute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Sheila M GreenfieldInstitute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Vibhu PaudyalSchool of Pharmacy, College of Medical and Dental Sciences, Sir Robert Aitken Institute for Medical Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK. v.paudyal@bham.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4173-6490

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimThis study aimed to undertake a systematic review and meta-analysis of global prevalence and types of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) use amongst adults with diabetes.

methodsNine databases, including MEDLINE and EMBASE, were searched for studies published between 2009 and 2019 which included extractable data for CAM use in adult patients with diabetes. Study characteristics, types of CAM, and overall and subgroup prevalence data in relation to CAM use were extracted. Meta-analysis of aggregate level data on prevalence and prevalence ratios (PRs) was performed using a random effects model.

resultsFrom the 38 studies included in the review, a total of 37 types of CAM and 223 types of herbs were identified. Pooled prevalence of CAM use was 51%. A wide variation in prevalence rates (predictive interval 8-93%) was observed. In the context of high heterogeneity, we found no evidence that CAM use was associated with gender, chronicity or type of diabetes. Approximately one third of patients did not disclose their use of CAM to healthcare professionals (95% PrI 25%, 97%). Herbal medicines, acupuncture, homoeopathy and spiritual healing were the common CAM types reported.

conclusionsA wide variation in prevalence of CAM use by patients with diabetes was identified. Healthcare professionals should be aware of their patients' use of CAM to ensure treatment optimization, avoid herb-drug interactions and promote medication adherence in diabetes. Diabetic reviews and clinical guidelines should incorporate exploration of patient use of CAM as many patients do not proactively disclose the use of CAM to their healthcare professionals. REGISTRATION: The protocol for this study was registered with the Centre for Review and Dissemination (CRD). Protocol registration number CRD42019125036.

Indexed as

Complementary TherapiesDiabetes MellitusHerb-Drug InteractionsHumansSociodemographic FactorsComplementary and alternative medicineDiabetesPrevalenceSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID33686454
PMCPMC8346452

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 Socratic graph.