Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41180280›Full record

ArticleBulletin of the World Health Organization2025

Regulatory frameworks and evidence requirements for traditional, complementary and integrative medicines.

Qi Chen, Hao-Jin Cheng, Zhao-Xiang Bian, Ai-Ping Lyu, Yue Yang, Kam Wa Chan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
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

6 authors.

Qi ChenSchool of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China.
Hao-Jin ChengSchool of Chinese Medicine, Hong Kong Baptist University, 7 Baptist University Road, Kowloon Tong, Hong Kong SAR, China.
Zhao-Xiang BianVincent V.C. Woo Chinese Medicine Clinical Research Institute, School of Chinese Medicine, Hong Kong SAR, China.
Ai-Ping LyuSchool of Chinese Medicine, Hong Kong Baptist University, 7 Baptist University Road, Kowloon Tong, Hong Kong SAR, China.
Yue YangSchool of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China.
Kam Wa ChanSchool of Chinese Medicine, Hong Kong Baptist University, 7 Baptist University Road, Kowloon Tong, Hong Kong SAR, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Traditional, complementary and integrative medicine plays an important role in global health-care systems. Despite its widespread use and recognition by more than 170 Member States of the World Health Organization, many disparities in regulation exist between countries. We conducted a comparative analysis of the regulatory frameworks governing traditional medicine products in six high- or middle-income countries or jurisdictions where traditional medicine is used extensively: Australia, Canada, China, Republic of Korea, United States of America and the European Union. We focused on marketing authorization pathways, approval standards and successful approvals. We found differences in regulatory approaches, with countries adopting either clinical study-based or traditional knowledge-based pathways which led to varying requirements for non-clinical and clinical evidence. While the European Union and the United States acknowledge historical human-use evidence, relatively rigorous clinical investigations are required. Australia and Canada consider historical human-use evidence in marketing authorization for products that do not require professional supervision. Recent regulatory reforms in countries such as China and the Republic of Korea aim to enhance regulatory supervision. Across all jurisdictions, fluctuations in the number of successful applications persisted amid evolving policy changes and regulatory requirements. To promote the worldwide use of traditional medicine products, a globally coordinated, tiered and risk-based international framework is needed to ensure the efficacy, quality and safety of traditional medicine products. This approach requires establishing stable (i.e. predictable and consistently implemented) regulatory systems, strengthening the evidence on traditional medicine products with both clinical and real-world data, and facilitating regulatory convergence through reciprocity and globally harmonized evaluation standards.

Indexed as

Complementary TherapiesIntegrative MedicineMedicine, TraditionalAustraliaCanadaChinaDrug ApprovalEuropean UnionEvidence-Based MedicineHumansUnited StatesWorld Health Organization

Identifiers

PMID41180280
PMCPMC12578520

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.