The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Disclosure of complementary medicine use to medical providers: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Open accessAbstract
Concomitant complementary medicine (CM) and conventional medicine use is frequent and carries potential risks. Yet, CM users frequently neglect to disclose CM use to medical providers. Our systematic review examines rates of and reasons for CM use disclosure to medical providers. Observational studies published 2003–2016 were searched (AMED, CINAHL, MEDLINE, PsycINFO). Eighty-six papers reporting disclosure rates and/or reasons for disclosure/non-disclosure of CM use to medical providers were reviewed. Fourteen were selected for meta-analysis of disclosure rates of biologically-based CM. Overall disclosure rates varied (7–80%). Meta-analysis revealed a 33% disclosure rate (95%CI: 24% to 43%) for biologically-based CM. Reasons for non-disclosure included lack of inquiry from medical providers, fear of provider disapproval, perception of disclosure as unimportant, belief providers lacked CM knowledge, lacking time, and belief CM was safe. Reasons for disclosure included inquiry from medical providers, belief providers would support CM use, belief disclosure was important for safety, and belief providers would give advice about CM. Disclosure appears to be influenced by the nature of patient-provider communication. However, inconsistent definitions of CM and lack of a standard measure for disclosure created substantial heterogeneity between studies. Disclosure of CM use to medical providers must be encouraged for safe, effective patient care.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
PRISMA-P Group, Moher, D., Shamseer, L., Clarke, M., Ghersi, D., Liberati, A., Petticrew, M., Shekelle, P., & Stewart, L. A. (2015) · Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1186/2046-4053-4-1 · Cited by 26,223
Herb and supplement use in the US adult population
Kennedy, J. (2005) · Clinical Therapeutics · doi:10.1016/j.clinthera.2005.11.004 · Cited by 340
Characteristics of Yoga Users: Results of a National Survey
Birdee, G. S., Legedza, A. T., Saper, R. B., Bertisch, S. M., Eisenberg, D. M., & Phillips, R. S. (2008) · Journal of General Internal Medicine · doi:10.1007/s11606-008-0735-5 · Cited by 335
Reid, R., Steel, A., Wardle, J., Trubody, A., & Adams, J. (2016) · BMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine · doi:10.1186/s12906-016-1143-8 · Cited by 238
Drug–Nutrient Interactions: A Broad View with Implications for Practice
Boullata, J. I., & Hudson, L. M. (2012) · Journal of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics · doi:10.1016/j.jada.2011.09.002 · Cited by 138
Stevenson, F. A., Britten, N., Barry, C. A., Bradley, C. P., & Barber, N. (2003) · Social Science & Medicine · doi:10.1016/s0277-9536(02)00377-5 · Cited by 134
Djuv, A., Nilsen, O. G., & Steinsbekk, A. (2013) · BMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine · doi:10.1186/1472-6882-13-295 · Cited by 80
Cited by
The Use of Medications and Dietary Supplements by Masters Athletes—A Review
Harnett, J., Climstein, M., Walsh, J., & Gifford, J. (2022) · Current Nutrition Reports · doi:10.1007/s13668-022-00398-0 · Cited by 12
Metadata
- Authors
- Foley, H., Steel, A., Cramer, H., Wardle, J., & Adams, J.
- Venue
- Scientific Reports
- Published
- 2019-02-07
- Volume
- 9
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 1573-1573
- ISSN
- 2045-2322 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2919701522
- Cited by
- 253
- References
- 7
- FWCI
- 11.57
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Disclosure of complementary medicine use to medical providers: a systematic review and meta-analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1038/s41598-018-38279-8
- The paper
- Foley, H., Steel, A., Cramer, H., Wardle, J., & Adams, J. (2019). Disclosure of complementary medicine use to medical providers: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Scientific Reports. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-38279-8
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.