No abstract

-This systematic review aimed to estimate the prevalence of use of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) in the UK. Five databases were searched for English language, peer-reviewed surveys published between 1 January 2000 and 7 October 2011. In addition, relevant book chapters and files from our own departmental records were searched by hand. Eighty-nine surveys were included, with a total of 97,222 participants. Most studies were of poor methodological quality. Across surveys on CAM in general, the average one-year prevalence of use of CAM was 41.1% and the average lifetime prevalence was 51.8%. In methodologically sound surveys, the equivalent rates were 26.3% and 44%, respectively. In surveys with response rates Ͼ70%, average one-year prevalence was nearly threefold lower than in surveys with response rates between 21% and 50%. Herbal medicine was the most popular CAM, followed by homeopathy, aromatherapy, massage and reflexology. Many patients and consumers in the UK use CAM; healthcare professionals should therefore responsibly advise their patients about the use of CAM.KEY WORDS: complementary and alternative medicine, survey, systematic review

Summary Aim:  The aim of this systematic review was to critically evaluate the evidence regarding the adverse effects (AEs) of homeopathy. Method:  Five electronic databases were searched to identify all relevant case reports and case series. Results:  In total, 38 primary reports met our inclusion criteria. Of those, 30 pertained to direct AEs of homeopathic remedies; and eight were related to AEs caused by the substitution of conventional medicine with homeopathy. The total number of patients who experienced AEs of homeopathy amounted to 1159. Overall, AEs ranged from mild‐to‐severe and included four fatalities. The most common AEs were allergic reactions and intoxications. Rhus toxidendron was the most frequently implicated homeopathic remedy. Conclusion:  Homeopathy has the potential to harm patients and consumers in both direct and indirect ways. Clinicians should be aware of its risks and advise their patients accordingly.

-This systematic review aims to estimate the prevalence of use of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) by physicians in the UK. Five databases were searched for surveys monitoring the prevalence of use of CAM, which were published between 1 January 1995 and 7 December 2011. In total, 14 papers that reported 13 separate surveys met our inclusion criteria. Most were of poor methodological quality. The average prevalence of use of CAM across all surveys was 20.6% (range 12.1-32%). The average referral rate to CAM was 39% (range 24.6-86%), and CAM was recommended by 46% of physicians (range 38-55%). The average percentage of physicians who had received training in CAM was 10.3% (range 4.8-21%). The three most commonly used methods of CAM were acupuncture, homeopathy and relaxation therapy. A sizable proportion of physicians in the UK seem to employ some type of CAM, yet many have not received any training in CAM. This raises issues related to medical ethics, professional competence and education of physicians.KEY WORDS: complementary and alternative medicine, survey, systematic review

No abstract

No abstract

Objective To estimate the prevalence of herbal medicine (HM) use in the UK. Methods The databases AMED, CINAHL, COCHRANE, EMBASE and MEDLINE were searched for peer‐reviewed surveys published between January 2000 and September 2011. The authors’ own departmental files were also manually searched for relevant references. Results Ten surveys were included with a total of 20 601 participants. All surveys had major methodological limitations. Across all surveys, the average prevalence rate for a range of time periods was 37.1% (range 4.8–92.4). One‐year prevalence was provided by just one survey and amounted to 36%. The vast majority of patients did not discuss their use of HM with a conventional healthcare professional. The average incidence rate of adverse effects that was associated with HM use was 15.8%. Conclusion Many UK patients and/or consumers use HM, often without consulting their conventional healthcare professionals. In order to maximise patient‐safety, a full medical history should include questions about HM usage.

Objectives This study aimed to determine rubella virus infectivity and immune status in pregnant females who visited the family medicine and obstetrics clinics at a large hospital in Saudi Arabia, and to identify the possible predictors of rubella susceptibility. Methods This registered‐based, cross‐sectional study included pregnant, aged between 18 and 50 years old, who presented for the first antenatal visit between 2017 and 2020. Data on sociodemographic, antenatal characteristics and serological results were collected. Chi‐Squared or Fisher's Exact test and t tests were used for bivariate analysis followed by the multivariable logistic regression model. Results A total of 4328 pregnant were included in the study. Seroprevalence of rubella immunity was 76.41%. Positive rubella IgM antibody was identified in 1.21% of those who performed the test (17/1409). Odds of susceptibility were decreased with an increase in age (OR = 0.96, 95% CI = 0.95‐0.97) and in non‐Saudis’ (OR = 0.44, 95% CI = 0.36‐0.54). Conclusions Approximately 24% of pregnant were susceptible to rubella virus infections in this study. Screening females of child‐bearing age and reimmunisation of susceptible cases before pregnancy are suggested. Further studies to investigate the impact of applying this policy in premarital screening are recommended.