Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29456449›Full record

ArticlePharmaceutical medicine2018

International Comparison of Five Herbal Medicine Registration Systems to Inform Regulation Development: United Kingdom, Germany, United States of America, United Arab Emirates and Kingdom of Bahrain.

Azhar H Alostad, Douglas T Steinke, Ellen I Schafheutle

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Pharmaceutical medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 1H NMR spectra as a characteristic of herbal preparations.Journal of food science and technology · 2025
    Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Plants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022
    Article
  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

3 authors.

Azhar H AlostadDivision of Pharmacy and Optometry, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Stopford Building, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PT UK.ORCID 0000-0002-0450-8093
Douglas T SteinkeDivision of Pharmacy and Optometry, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Stopford Building, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PT UK.ORCID 0000-0001-8917-2674
Ellen I SchafheutleDivision of Pharmacy and Optometry, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, The University of Manchester, Stopford Building, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PT UK.ORCID 0000-0001-7072-0888

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHerbal medicine (HM) regulation is less developed than that of allopathic medicines, with some countries lacking specific regulations.

objectiveFor the purpose of informing a registration system for HMs in Kuwait, which does not manufacture but imports all HMs, this study compared the similarities and differences between the current HM registration systems of five countries.

methodsThe five countries were selected as major source countries of HM in Kuwait (United Kingdom (UK), Germany and United States of America (USA)) or because of geographical proximity or size and approach (United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Kingdom of Bahrain). Documentary analysis of HM classification systems was performed by reviewing the regulatory and law documentation of these countries' drug regulatory authority websites. Data on HM definition, classification and the main requirements for registration were extracted and analysed for similarities and differences.

resultsThere was diversity in the classification of HMs across all five countries including terms used, definitions, type of law, requirements, restrictions and preparation type. The regulatory authorities of the UK, Germany, UAE  and Kingdom of Bahrain offer simplified registration for HMs, where plausible efficacy as a result of established traditional use is sufficient. In USA, the concept of traditional use does not exist, instead, the product can be categorised as a dietary supplement where no assessment or evaluation is required prior to marketing.

conclusionsOwing to the inconsistencies in how drug regulatory authorities define HMs, it will be important to design a clear definition of what constitutes a HM in Kuwait, which is a country that does not produce and register its own products but assesses products registered elsewhere.

Identifiers

PMID29456449
PMCPMC5801395

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.