Frontiers in Medicine (May 2022)

Use of Traditional, Complementary and Integrative Medicine During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

  • Tae-Hun Kim,
  • Tae-Hun Kim,
  • Jung Won Kang,
  • Sae-Rom Jeon,
  • Lin Ang,
  • Lin Ang,
  • Hye Won Lee,
  • Myeong Soo Lee,
  • Myeong Soo Lee

DOI
https://doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2022.884573
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 9

Abstract

Read online

BackgroundTraditional, Complementary and Integrative Medicine (TCIM) has been reported to use for symptom management of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The objective of this review was to identify the overall usage prevalence of TCIM interventions for COVID-19.MethodsSurveys on the general population and observational studies on the COVID-19 patient chart review were located in the search of PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases in September 2021. Observational studies, such as cross-sectional studies, surveys, cohort studies and hospital-based patient case reviews, published in any language, reporting the usage of TCIM in the patients with COVID-19 or the general population during the COVID-19 pandemic were included in this review. Data screening and extraction were performed independently by two reviewers. The reporting quality of the included studies was assessed with the STrengthening the Reporting of OBservational studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement. To conduct a meta-analysis of the usage prevalence of various TCIM interventions, the effect size of the proportion for each intervention was calculated with the inverse variance method. The main outcome was usage prevalence of TCIM interventions among patients with COVID-19 or the general population during the COVID-19 pandemic.ResultsA total of 62 studies were included in this review. The overall TCIM usage prevalence was estimated to be 0.64 (95% CI 0.54–0.73). The overall prevalence did not differ between the population-based survey (0.65, 95% CI 0.48–0.81) and the hospital-based patient case review (0.63, 95% CI 0.52–0.73). Statistical heterogeneity and comparatively low quality in reporting were observed, which should be cautiously considered when interpreting the results.ConclusionVarious TCIM interventions were reported to be used with comparatively high frequency. Future international collaborative research might overcome the main limitation of this study, i.e., the heterogeneity of the included data.Systematic Review Registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=278452, identifier: CRD42021278452.

Keywords