ArticleGlobal advances in health and medicine2022
Anthroposophic Medicinal Products: A Literature Review of Features, Similarities and Differences to Conventional Medicinal Products, Scientific and Regulatory Assessment.
Article in Global advances in health and medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Arnica/Levisticum 6x comp. can alleviate musculoskeletal symptoms in breast cancer patients undergoing endocrine therapy: a case series.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Article
- St John's Wort (Complementary medicine research · 2025Observational
- Nurses' perceptions of metaparadigmatic concepts in anthroposophic nursing.Revista brasileira de enfermagem · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Regulatory assessment of anthroposophic medicinal products (AMPs) can be challenging due to their specific features. Objective: The aim of this paper is therefore to provide adequate scientific information on AMPs for regulatory purposes. Methods: A literature review was executed with database searches in PubMed, Cinahl, Merkurstab, Anthromedics, and https://iaap-pharma.org/. Search terms were: anthroposophic medicinal products, anthroposophic medicines, anthroposophic pharmacy. There was no language restriction; searches were executed from onset until June 11, 2020. In addition, experts were invited to suggest relevant literature. Results: Eighty-seven of 660 identified publications were included. The system of anthroposophic medicine (AM) with its conceptual background and various aspects of AMPs was described: definition, pharmaceutical properties, an example of AMP development, use in clinical practice, similarities with and differences to conventional medicinal products, societal aspects, scientific and regulatory assessment. Conclusion: AMPs are part of the integrative whole medical system of AM. AMPs are manufactured according to Good Manufacturing Practice and national drug regulations and have an excellent safety status; the limited available evidence suggests clinical benefits. Current drug regulation of AMPs in the EU and most European countries does not take the special properties of AMPs into account. Future research should focus on appropriate methodologies for the evaluation of effects of AMPs as part of the AM whole medical system, the scientific quality of its non-atomistic holistic ontological position, and the integration of AM and conventional medicine in clinical practice. Future policies should focus on appropriate ways of addressing regulatory challenges to AMPs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.