ReviewChinese medicine2025
Technical guidelines for non-clinical pharmacological research of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) formulae.
Review in Chinese medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A visualization analysis of Traditional Chinese Medicine for influenza prevention and treatment: advances, hotspots, and future trends.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Pooled it
- Deciphering the Combined Effects of Hydroxysafflor Yellow A and Calycosin Through Coupled PK-PD Modeling.Biology · 2026Article
- Integrating Network Pharmacology and Clinical Observation to Elucidate the Therapeutic Mechanisms of Yangzheng Xiaoji Decoction in Primary Liver Cancer.International journal of general medicine · 2026Article
- From Mechanistic Evidence to Clinical Translation: A Narrative Review of Chinese Herbal Medicine for Insomnia.Drug design, development and therapy · 2026Review
- Traditional Chinese medicine modulates tumor-associated macrophages to suppress gastric cancer progression: mechanisms and therapeutic potential.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Review
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
Abstract
Non-clinical pharmacology of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) formulae plays a crucial role in elucidating their therapeutic mechanisms. With the integration of cutting-edge disciplines such as systems biology, big data, and artificial intelligence, the research depth and breadth in this field continue to expand. However, technical standards for non-clinical pharmacology research on TCM formulae have not yet been established. To address this, technical guidelines for non-clinical pharmacology research of TCM formulae were formed, aiming to scientifically standardize research content, elevate research quality, and facilitate the mutual translation between clinical and basic research. Guided by integrative pharmacology of TCM and driven by clinical value, these guidelines employ multi-dimensional qualitative pharmacokinetics (PK) and pharmacodynamics (PD) studies alongside quantitative "PK-PD" studies of key components. This approach enables the transition from panoramic description to precise mechanistic research, establishing a complete evidence chain system for the effectiveness of TCM formulae and demonstrating their holistic action characteristics of "multi-component, multi-pathway, multi-target". Meanwhile, the guidelines emphasize that animal models for TCM research should ensure stability and reproducibility. Additionally, pharmacodynamic evaluation is characterized by its measurability and quantifiability. The mechanisms of action at the molecular level should be in-depth and interpretable. These aspects collectively provide guidance for basic non-clinical pharmacology research on TCM formulae and the development of new TCM drugs. The formulation of these guidelines leveraged the research strengths of the drafting units' teams, incorporated literature review findings, and achieved consensus through extensive discussions among multidisciplinary experts. Broad expert opinions from universities, research institutes, and enterprises engaged in new drug development were solicited, ensuring the guidelines' practicality, standardization, scientific rigor, and feasibility.
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.