A systematic review and meta-analysis of complementary and alternative medicine in asthma

16Citations
Citations of this article
85Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Asthma is a chronic, inflammatory lung disease affecting around 235 million people worldwide. Conventional medications in asthma are not curative and patients have significant concerns regarding their side-effects. Consequently, many asthma patients turn to complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) for a more holistic approach to care. We systematically reviewed the available evidence on the effectiveness of CAM in the management of asthma in adults. We searched the MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, AMED and Cochrane databases for randomised controlled trials published in English between 1990 and 2016 investigating the effectiveness of oral or topical CAM in asthmatic adults. The quality of the studies was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool. In all, 23 eligible trials were identified covering 19 different CAMs. Overall, there was limited evidence on the effectiveness of CAM in adult asthma as most CAMs were only assessed in a single trial. CAMs with multiple trials provided null or inconsistent results. Many of the trials were rated as having high risk of bias. The existing evidence is insufficient to recommend any of the oral and topical CAMs in the management of asthma in adults.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Kohn, C. M., & Paudyal, P. (2017, January 1). A systematic review and meta-analysis of complementary and alternative medicine in asthma. European Respiratory Review. European Respiratory Society. https://doi.org/10.1183/16000617.0092-2016

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free