↓ Skip to main content

What do Cochrane systematic reviews say about new practices on integrative medicine?

Overview of attention for article published in Sao Paulo Medical Journal, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Readers on

mendeley
133 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.
Article details
Title
What do Cochrane systematic reviews say about new practices on integrative medicine?
Published in
Sao Paulo Medical Journal, June 2018
DOI 10.1590/1516-3180.2018.0172170418
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

This study identified and summarized all Cochrane systematic reviews (SRs) on the effects of ten integrative practices that were recently added to the Brazilian public healthcare system (SUS). Review of systematic reviews, conducted in the Discipline of Evidence-Based Medicine, Escola Paulista de Medicina (EPM), Universidade Federal de São Paulo (Unifesp). Review of Cochrane SRs on the following interventions were identified, summarized and critically assessed: apitherapy, aromatherapy, bioenergetics, family constellation, flower therapy, chromotherapy, geotherapy, hypnotherapy, hand imposition or ozone therapy. We included a total of 16 SRs: 4 on apitherapy, 4 on aromatherapy, 6 on hypnotherapy and 2 on ozone therapy. No Cochrane SR was found regarding bioenergetics, family constellation, chromotherapy, clay therapy, flower therapy or hand imposition. The only high-quality evidence was in relation to the potential benefit of apitherapy, specifically regarding some benefits from honey dressings for partial healing of burn wounds, for reduction of coughing among children with acute coughs and for preventing allergic reactions to insect stings. Except for some specific uses of apitherapy (honey for burn wounds and for acute coughs and bee venom for allergic reactions to insect stings), the use of ten integrative practices that have recently been incorporated into SUS does not seem to be supported by evidence from Cochrane SRs.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 133 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 133 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 23 17%
Student > Master 14 11%
Researcher 14 11%
Student > Postgraduate 10 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 5%
Other 17 13%
Unknown 48 36%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 29 22%
Nursing and Health Professions 22 17%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 2%
Neuroscience 3 2%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 2%
Other 22 17%
Unknown 51 38%