4.7 Review

Guidelines for randomised controlled trials investigating Chinese herbal medicine

Journal

JOURNAL OF ETHNOPHARMACOLOGY
Volume 140, Issue 3, Pages 550-554

Publisher

ELSEVIER IRELAND LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jep.2011.12.017

Keywords

Clinical trials; Traditional Chinese medicine; Systems biology and omics; Quality traditional medicines

Funding

  1. GP-TCM
  2. European Commission [223154]
  3. NIHR
  4. Rufford Maurice Laing Foundation
  5. National Institute for Health Research [PDF-2011-04-027] Funding Source: researchfish
  6. National Institutes of Health Research (NIHR) [PDF-2011-04-027] Funding Source: National Institutes of Health Research (NIHR)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Ethnographic relevance: Clinical trials investigating Chinese herbal medicine (CHM) have been frequently criticised for their lack of scientific rigour. As part of the GP-TCM project a team of experienced clinical researchers and CHM practitioners have developed clinical trial guidelines for CHM that combine an appreciation for traditional methods of practice with detailed and practical advice on research methodology. Materials and methods: This paper presents an executive summary of this work. It introduces the practice of CHM and the key considerations that need to be addressed whilst researching this traditional medical system. Results: These guidelines emphasise the importance of identifying best practice, and then developing and applying appropriate and rigorous research methodologies to investigate CHM as a whole system. Conclusions: It is hoped that this will encourage a thoughtful and meticulous process of investigation that will clarify the contribution that CHM can make to our future healthcare. Innovative new approaches are considered including the application of the new omic technologies and systems biology as a way of enhancing our understanding of traditional practice (C) 2011 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available