Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41586180›Full record

ArticleAsian bioethics review2026

Easier Said than Done: The Politics of Medical Integration.

Kathryn Muyskens

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Asian bioethics review, 2026. 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.

Kathryn MuyskensCentre for Biomedical Ethics, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore.ORCID 0000-0001-8506-0659

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The WHO has recently been advocating for a more inclusive approach within healthcare systems, urging the integration of traditional medicines with biomedicine. Which traditions are perceived as authentic, authoritative or legitimate is as much a political question as it is a conceptual or scientific one. This paper will pose the question: is integration in fact desirable? Proponents may argue that integration will produce a number of benefits: more efficient use of healthcare resources, greater range of patient choice, and respect for the intellectual contributions of traditional medicines. Yet, I will argue that given the deep ontological divides across traditions, traditional medical practices are often incommensurable with biomedical paradigms, meaning integration is ultimately infeasible. Furthermore, to the extent that integration is pursued, it is likely to replicate colonial attitudes toward indigenous practices and repeat rather than remedy the very forms of epistemic injustice it would claim to avoid.

Indexed as

Healthcare justiceIndigenous knowledgeIntegrative medicineTraditional medicine

Identifiers

PMID41586180
PMCPMC12824087

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.