MedElevator Войти в исследования
← Поиск публикаций

DOI 10.1016/j.ctcp.2018.02.014

Медицинская библиотека · Complementary therapies in clinical practice · 2018

Investigation into complementary and integrative medicine practitioners' clinical experience of intestinal permeability: A cross-sectional survey.

Leech Bradley, Schloss Janet, Steel Amie

СтатьяПеревод пока не подготовлен

Аннотация

BACKGROUND

This study aims to explore the conditions complementary and integrative medicine (CIM) practitioners associate with increased intestinal permeability (IP) and the methods they employ to assess IP.

METHODS

A cross-sectional survey of naturopaths, nutritionists and Western herbal medicine practitioners was undertaken (n = 227) through the Practitioner Research and Collaboration Initiative (PRACI) network.

RESULTS

CIM practitioners (n = 36, response rate 15.9%) associate IP with gastrointestinal (100.0%), autoimmune (91.7%), skin (91.7%), neurological (80.6%), respiratory (55.6%) and liver-related conditions (44.4%). CIM practitioners frequently treat IP (72.7%); observing a minimum 3 months of treatment is required to resolve IP. Patient's signs and symptoms were the main reasons CIM practitioners suspected IP (94.1%).

CONCLUSION

CIM practitioners observe a clinical link between IP and a wide range of conditions, including those not yet recognised within the literature. The clinical experience of CIM practitioners holds substantial value to the advancement of research and the clinical management of IP.

Для цитирования: Leech Bradley, Schloss Janet, Steel Amie. Investigation into complementary and integrative medicine practitioners' clinical experience of intestinal permeability: A cross-sectional survey.. Complementary therapies in clinical practice. 2018. DOI: 10.1016/j.ctcp.2018.02.014.

Предметные рубрики MeSH

Подготовка и перевод публикации
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…

История · было → стало

Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.

Тип публикации указан по данным источника. Уровень доказательности автоматически не присваивается.