Use of complementary and alternative medicine by food-allergic patients
Use of complementary and alternative medicine by food-allergic patients
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/s1081-1206(10)60802-2
复制
发表时间：
2006-09-01
影响因子：
5.9
通讯作者：
Sicherer, Scott H.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Ko, Jimmy;Lee, Jennifer I.;Sicherer, Scott H.
背景：补充和替代医学（CAM）的兴趣正在增加。使用CAM在食物过敏patients has not previously been evaluated.Objectives：To determine the prevalence of CAM use，the types of CAM models used，and opinions about CAM in food allergic patients.Methods：A questionnaire was distributed to attendees at a patient conference in 2002 and to patients at pediatric food allergic clinics in 2005. Results：Surveys were completed by 380 families.受访者主要是白色，有多种食物过敏儿童的父母，来自三州（纽约，新泽西，康涅狄格）地区。22%的受访者使用了被认为未经证实或被证明无效的诊断方法（如血清IgG 4、皮肤电检测和运动机能学）; 18%的受访者使用了CAM疗法。参与者使用了几种类型的CAM从业者，最常见的是脊椎按摩师，顺势疗法和针灸师。只有49%的使用CAM的患者向他们的医生透露了这一点。CAM的疗效评级较差。至于参与者的意见，一个平等的疗效，安全性和成本的草药治疗是首选。药物（37%对12%; P = .001），但大多数参与者（51%）没有偏好或不确定。结论：未经证实或证实的诊断方法和CAM治疗使用约1在5个受访者。那些使用CAM的人注意到疗效不佳，但如果有选择的话，许多人更喜欢草药疗法而不是药物。关于食物过敏的可靠测试和CAM疗法的进一步研究的教育是必要的。
Background: Interest in complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) is increasing. Use of CAM in food-allergic patients has not previously been evaluated.Objectives: To determine the prevalence of CAM use, the types of CAM modalities used, and opinions about CAM in food-allergic patients.Methods: A questionnaire was distributed to attendees at a patient conference in 2002 and to patients at pediatric food allergy clinics in 2005.Results: Surveys were completed by 380 families. Respondents were mainly white, parents of children with multiple food allergies, and from the tri-state (New York, New Jersey, Connecticut) area. Diagnostic modalities considered unproven or disproven (such as serum IgG4, electrodermal skin testing, and kinesiology) were used by 22% of respondents; CAM therapies were used by 18%. Participants used several types of CAM practitioners, the most common being chiropractors, homeopaths, and acupuncturists. Only 49% of patients using CAM disclosed this to their physicians. Efficacy ratings for CAM were poor. Regarding participants' opinions, an herbal therapy of equal efficacy, safety, and cost was preferred to a. pharmaceutical drug (37% vs 12%; P = .001), but most participants (51%) had no preference or were unsure.Conclusion: Unproven or disproven diagnostic methods and CAM treatments were used by approximately I in 5 respondents. Those using CAM noted poor efficacy, but if given a choice, many would prefer herbal therapies to pharmaceutical drugs. Education regarding reliable testing for food allergy and further research on CAM therapies are warranted.