ReviewClinical, cosmetic and investigational dermatology2025
Comparative Analysis of Traditional Chinese Medicine and Contemporary Treatments for Psoriasis Vulgaris.
Review in Clinical, cosmetic and investigational dermatology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This scoping review synthesizes existing research comparing traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) and contemporary treatments (CTs) for managing psoriasis vulgaris (PsV). A thorough literature search was conducted across multiple databases through February 2024, identifying relevant systematic reviews, randomized controlled trials (RCTs), quasi-experimental, and observational studies that contrast TCM approaches with CTs for PsV. From an initial pool, 195 articles were analyzed, indicating a growing interest in this comparative area, with most studies involving sample sizes between 30 and 100 participants. Key interventions included both internal and topical applications of Chinese herbal medicines, notably Rehmanniae Radix, Arnebiae Radix, and Smilacis Glabrae Rhizoma. Outcomes focused on PASI scores, quality of life metrics, and adverse effects. Results suggest that TCM offers efficacy in improving PASI scores and quality of life; however, evidence concerning toxicity profiles, recurrence rates, and comorbidity outcomes remains sparse. Notable research gaps include a lack of comprehensive data on newer treatment modalities, particularly biologics. Future studies should aim to delineate subjects and interventions in greater detail to support clinical applicability.
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.