ArticlePreventive medicine reports2024
Evaluation of clinical characters and use of alternative medicines in the management of headache and predictors of treatment satisfaction among Saudi adults - A community-based study in Saudi Arabia.
Article in Preventive medicine reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and objective: The use of alternative medicine (AM) is rising globally. Hence this study aimed to assess the Use of and Satisfaction with Alternative Medicine in the management of headache and Related Factors in Individuals, living in Saudi Arabia. Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted from July to December 2023 using an online questionnaire in Riyadh Saudi Arabia. The data was collected using a series, of prevalidated questionnaires aimed to assess the utilization and satisfaction of AM for the headache. Convenience sampling was applied for data collection. Results: A response rate of 93.1 % (n = 550) was obtained. Among the respondents, 78.7 % reported having headaches, while 69.2 % had a history of using AMs for headaches. However, among the users of AMs, 65.9 % of them were satisfied with the results of AMs, of those who were satisfied, 33.7 % said that AMs helped to prevent headache attacks, and 53.8 % reported that AMs use reduced pain intensity. The regression results demonstrated that there was a significant relationship between the satisfaction of AM for the headache and age (p < 0.004), and Active in sports (p < 0.019) and severity of the headache pain (p < 0.081). Conclusion: The findings reported that relatively high prevalence of AMs used to manage headaches, while 65.9% of the users were satisfied with the outcomes, the satisfaction was found to have a significant relationship with age, activity in sports and severity of pain. To avoid negative effects of AM, it is recommended to use under the qualified healthcare professionals.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.