Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28670279›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in pharmacology2017

Innovating Chinese Herbal Medicine: From Traditional Health Practice to Scientific Drug Discovery.

Shuo Gu, Jianfeng Pei

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in pharmacology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

35 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Evaluation of the Antibacterial Activity ofCurrent pharmaceutical design · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Plants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023
    Review
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

2 authors.

Shuo GuCenter for Quantitative Biology, Academy for Advanced Interdisciplinary Studies, Peking UniversityBeijing, China.
Jianfeng PeiCenter for Quantitative Biology, Academy for Advanced Interdisciplinary Studies, Peking UniversityBeijing, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

As one of the major contemporary alternative medicines, traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) continues its influence in Chinese communities and has begun to attract the academic attention in the world of western medicine. This paper aims to examine Chinese herbal medicine (CHM), the essential branch of TCM, from both narrative and scientific perspectives. CHM is a traditional health practice originated from Chinese philosophy and religion, holding the belief of holism and balance in the body. With the development of orthodox medicine and science during the last centuries, CHM also seized the opportunity to change from traditional health practice to scientific drug discovery illustrated in the famous story of the herb-derived drug artemisinin. However, hindered by its culture and founding principles, CHM faces the questions of the research paradigm posed by the convention of science. To address these questions, we discussed two essential questions concerning the relationship of CHM and science, and then upheld the paradigm of methodological reductionism in scientific research. Finally, the contemporary narrative of CHM in the 21st century was discussed in the hope to preserve this medical tradition in tandem with scientific research.

Indexed as

Chinese herbal medicinedrug discoverymedical narrativemethodological reductionismtraditional Chinese medicine

Identifiers

PMID28670279
PMCPMC5472722

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.