Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25428336›Full record

ReviewChinese journal of integrative medicine2014

Review of the regulations for clinical research in herbal medicines in USA.

Tony Yuqi Tang, Fang-Zhou Li, Janyne Afseth

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Chinese journal of integrative medicine, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Discrimination ofJournal of analytical methods in chemistry · 2020
    Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Tony Yuqi TangHerose Clinical Centre, 190 Clemenceau Ave, #03-24, SSC, Singapore, 239924, Singapore, fbap8143@gmail.com.
Fang-Zhou Li
Janyne Afseth

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In 2012, USA Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved 39 new drugs, however, there are only two botanical drugs (one topical and one oral) approved by FDA since the publication of the FDA's industry guidelines for the botanical drug product in June 2004. The approval shows the Western guideline can be used for herbal medicines, authors investigate current regulation on herbal medicine clinical research, identify challenges conducting clinical trials, and seek to produce some guidance for potential investigators and sponsors considering a clinical trial in this area. Key words were formulated for searching on Medline and FDA website to locate relevant regulations for clinical research in herbal medicines to understand current environment for herbal medicine usage and examine the barriers affecting herbal medicine in clinical trials. Authors critically explore case study of the 1st FDA approved botanical drugs, Veregen (sinecatechins), green tea leaves extract, a topical cream for perianal and genital condyloma. In consideration of current regulation environment in USA, based on the findings and analysis through the literature review and Veregen case study, authors produce and propose a Checklist for New Drug Application of Herbal Medicines for potential investigators and sponsors considering in a herbal medicine clinical trial.

Indexed as

Biomedical ResearchClinical Trials as TopicHerbal MedicineHerb-Drug InteractionsHumansPlants, MedicinalUnited States

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.