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

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Standard

Harvard

APA

Vancouver

Author

Bibtex

@article{1a29b3bc5d9544dfa83d695e814f8de4,
title = "Global prevalence and types of complementary and alternative medicines use amongst adults with diabetes: systematic review and meta-analysis",
abstract = "Aim: This 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. Methods: Nine 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. Results: From 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. Conclusions: A wide variation in prevalence of CAM use by patients with diabetes was identified. Healthcare professionals should be aware of their patients{\textquoteright} 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.",
keywords = "Complementary and alternative medicine, Diabetes, Prevalence, Systematic review",
author = "Alzahrani, {Abdulaziz Saud S} and Malcolm Price and Sheila Greenfield and Vibhu Paudyal",
note = "Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} 2021, The Author(s).",
year = "2021",
month = mar,
day = "8",
doi = "10.1007/s00228-021-03097-x",
language = "English",
journal = "European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology",
issn = "0031-6970",
publisher = "Springer",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Global prevalence and types of complementary and alternative medicines use amongst adults with diabetes

T2 - systematic review and meta-analysis

AU - Alzahrani, Abdulaziz Saud S

AU - Price, Malcolm

AU - Greenfield, Sheila

AU - Paudyal, Vibhu

N1 - Publisher Copyright: © 2021, The Author(s).

PY - 2021/3/8

Y1 - 2021/3/8

N2 - Aim: This 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. Methods: Nine 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. Results: From 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. Conclusions: A 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.

AB - Aim: This 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. Methods: Nine 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. Results: From 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. Conclusions: A 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.

KW - Complementary and alternative medicine

KW - Diabetes

KW - Prevalence

KW - Systematic review

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85102291814&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s00228-021-03097-x

DO - 10.1007/s00228-021-03097-x

M3 - Article

C2 - 33686454

JO - European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology

JF - European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology

SN - 0031-6970

ER -