↓ Skip to main content

High prevalence but limited evidence in complementary and alternative medicine: guidelines for future research

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies, February 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
1 blog
twitter
9 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
111 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
181 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
High prevalence but limited evidence in complementary and alternative medicine: guidelines for future research
Published in
BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies, February 2014
DOI 10.1186/1472-6882-14-46
Pubmed ID
Authors

Felix H Fischer, George Lewith, Claudia M Witt, Klaus Linde, Klaus von Ammon, Francesco Cardini, Torkel Falkenberg, Vinjar Fønnebø, Helle Johannessen, Bettina Reiter, Bernhard Uehleke, Wolfgang Weidenhammer, Benno Brinkhaus

Abstract

The use of complementary and alternative Medicine (CAM) has increased over the past two decades in Europe. Nonetheless, research investigating the evidence to support its use remains limited. The CAMbrella project funded by the European Commission aimed to develop a strategic research agenda starting by systematically evaluating the state of CAM in the EU. CAMbrella involved 9 work packages covering issues such as the definition of CAM; its legal status, provision and use in the EU; and a synthesis of international research perspectives. Based on the work package reports, we developed a strategic and methodologically robust research roadmap based on expert workshops, a systematic Delphi-based process and a final consensus conference. The CAMbrella project suggests six core areas for research to examine the potential contribution of CAM to the health care challenges faced by the EU. These areas include evaluating the prevalence of CAM use in Europe; the EU cititzens' needs and attitudes regarding CAM; the safety of CAM; the comparative effectiveness of CAM; the effects of meaning and context on CAM outcomes; and different models for integrating CAM into existing health care systems. CAM research should use methods generally accepted in the evaluation of health services, including comparative effectiveness studies and mixed-methods designs. A research strategy is urgently needed, ideally led by a European CAM coordinating research office dedicated to fostering systematic communication between EU governments, the public, charitable and industry funders, researchers and other stakeholders. A European Centre for CAM should also be established to monitor and further a coordinated research strategy with sufficient funds to commission and promote high quality, independent research focusing on the public's health needs and pan-European collaboration. There is a disparity between highly prevalent use of CAM in Europe and solid knowledge about it. A strategic approach on CAM research should be established to investigate the identified gaps of knowledge and to address upcoming health care challenges.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 181 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 1%
Spain 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Unknown 176 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 32 18%
Researcher 21 12%
Student > Bachelor 21 12%
Student > Ph. D. Student 19 10%
Student > Postgraduate 12 7%
Other 45 25%
Unknown 31 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 51 28%
Nursing and Health Professions 20 11%
Social Sciences 13 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 11 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 11 6%
Other 38 21%
Unknown 37 20%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 14. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 October 2015.
All research outputs
#2,259,214
of 22,787,797 outputs
Outputs from BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies
#404
of 3,628 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#28,344
of 307,432 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies
#11
of 88 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,787,797 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,628 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 307,432 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 88 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.