ReviewChinese journal of integrative medicine2014
Review of the regulations for clinical research in herbal medicines in USA.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Implementation of a computational medical assemblage heuristic to improve rational design of phytomedicines for safety, efficacy and regulatory approval.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2026Article
- Difficulties in Using Natural Herbal Substances and Their Current use in Some Pharmaceutical Dosage Forms.Current pharmaceutical design · 2025Review
- Discrimination ofJournal of analytical methods in chemistry · 2020Article
- Interaction of Plant Extracts with Central Nervous System Receptors.Medicines (Basel, Switzerland) · 2017Review
- Ilex kaushue and Its Bioactive Component 3,5-Dicaffeoylquinic Acid Protected Mice from Lipopolysaccharide-Induced Acute Lung Injury.Scientific reports · 2016Article
- Natural Products to Counteract the Epidemic of Cardiovascular and Metabolic Disorders.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2016Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
25428336What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.