Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41030624›Full record

ReviewThe Yale journal of biology and medicine2025

Zootherapy in Asia through the Lens of Museums of Traditional Medicine.

Katarzyna R Jarosz

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in The Yale journal of biology and medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

1 author.

Katarzyna R JaroszDepartment of Management, International University of Logistics, Wrocław, Poland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In this study, I examine how museums of traditional medicine in Asia construct and present narratives about zootherapy. Through analyzing displays and their contextual framing, I investigate how animal-derived remedies are represented, which species and medical applications are included, and how museums address conservation and ethical concerns. The study is based on fieldwork conducted between 2018 and 2025, including visits to five museums dedicated to traditional medicine. These institutions include the Museum of Traditional Medicine in Isfara, the Museum of Traditional Vietnamese Medicine, the Hu Qing Yu Tang Traditional Chinese Medicine Museum, the Pharmacy Museum in Lisbon, and the Suzhou Museum of Traditional Chinese Medicine. Exhibit documentation, textual analysis, and comparative research methods were used to assess how zootherapy is represented in these museums. The findings reveal that zootherapy exhibits include a wide range of species, from invertebrates such as insects and mollusks to large mammals like bears, elephants, and tigers. Some exhibits provide detailed descriptions of their medicinal uses, while others lack contextualization or critical engagement with conservation issues. The depiction of zootherapy in museums varies significantly, with some institutions presenting it as an enduring medical tradition and others portraying it as an obsolete practice rooted in historical beliefs rather than modern pharmacology. The absence of ethical considerations in museum narratives is a key concern, particularly regarding endangered species. The study also highlights the role of traditional medicine museums in shaping public perceptions of zootherapy, influencing how these practices are understood in both historical and contemporary contexts.

Indexed as

Medicine, TraditionalMuseumsAnimalsAsiaHumansMedicine, Chinese Traditionalanimal-based remediesconservationendangered speciesethnopharmacologymuseum studiespostcolonial identitytraditional medicinezootherapy

Identifiers

PMID41030624
PMCPMC12466302

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.