ReviewJournal of Ayurveda and integrative medicine
Navigating the regulatory landscape of herbal medicines: A global comparison of India, China, Europe, the United States and Japan.
Review in Journal of Ayurveda and integrative medicine. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The use of herbal medicines is expanding rapidly worldwide, but regional regulatory systems vary greatly, leading to variations in quality, safety and efficacy. Varying legal frameworks, insufficient quality control and gaps in post-market surveillance create challenges in ensuring the reliability of herbal products. This study aims to analyze and compare the regulations that oversee herbal medicines in five major regions: India, China, Europe, the United States and Japan, highlighting key challenges and proposing recommendations for improving global regulatory alignment. Data were collected from official regulatory websites and scholarly articles. Additionally, the study tracked the progress of related regulations, advancements in scientific research, and the evolving infrastructure in the respective five geographical areas. The study examined regulatory components, including licensing requirements, pre-market validation, quality control and post-market surveillance across these five regions. Regulatory approaches vary significantly: Europe and Japan emphasize pre-market validation and scientific evidence, while the U.S. relies more on post-market monitoring. India and China integrate traditional practices with modern regulatory frameworks. These differences pose challenges for ensuring consistent safety and quality standards globally. Potential solutions involve adopting Good Manufacturing Practices (GMPs), harmonizing pharmacopoeial standards and leveraging emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence for quality assurance and supply chain transparency. Achieving global regulatory harmonization is crucial for ensuring the safety and efficacy of herbal medicines while preserving traditional knowledge. Strengthening international collaboration, enforcing standardized quality measures, and integrating scientific validation into traditional systems can enhance consumer confidence and facilitate international trade in herbal medicines.
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.