ArticleJournal of religion and health2026
Rethinking Botanical Healing in World Religions: Nexus, Gains, Gaps, and Recommendations for Improved Healthcare.
Article in Journal of religion and health, 2026. 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This article examines the perspectives of selected global religious groups in Asia, the Americas, and Africa on herbal medicine (HM). It highlights their nexus and sheds light on the gains, gaps, and challenges arising from the interaction or disconnection between spirituality and herbalism. It raises four questions bordering on (1) the spiritual undertones of herbal medicine, (2) the nexus, gains, and gaps of HM, (3) the implications of the gains, gaps, and challenges on improved healthcare, and (4) possible recommendations to address the gaps and challenges. The study reveals that problems affecting the effectiveness and maximization of HM for improved healthcare stem from stakeholders. These include (a) religious groups that reject and demonize HM via poor theology and indoctrination, (b) herbalists with superstition, intentional secrecy to monopolize knowledge of herbal medicine, and substandard application of the products, (c) health policymakers who pay poor or no attention to the regulation and manufacturing standards, and (d) consumers who subscribe to HM without herbal historical knowledge and medical advice. As a recommendation, five key points are presented to support a rethinking process for maximizing the benefits of herbal medicine and enhancing healthcare.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41882469What 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.