The Proportion of Complementary and Alternative Medicine Utilization Among Saudi Population for Eye Care: Cross-Sectional Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose To estimate the prevalence, determinants and perceived benefit of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) use for ophthalmic purposes among the Saudi population. Methods A cross-sectional study was carried out in 2019 targeting visitors of King Khaled Eye Specialist Hospital (KKESH), Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. The survey had 18 questions in Arabic regarding the use of CAM for eye ailments. The magnitude was associated to the demographic and eye-related factors. Results We interviewed 999 participants. The prevalence of CAM usage was 21.9% (95% confidence interval 19.3; 24.5). Castor oil (49.3%), antimony (khohl alethmed) (40.6%), chamomile (19.6%), and green tea leaves (11.4%) were the most common medications used. Other traditional eye treatments included eye vitamins, faith healing (prayer, reciting Quran, Zamzam water), cautery, cupping, and acupuncture. Conclusions One in five Saudi eye patients used CAM. The factors governing this health behavior should be studied to change this practice pattern.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".