Cited by 11Medicinal Plant Extracts EffectsComplementary and Alternative Medicine StudiesTraditional Chinese Medicine Studies

Herbal medicine for psychiatric disorders: Psychopharmacology and neuroscience-based nomenclature

Tang, Siu W., Tang, Wayne H., Leonard, Brian E.·2019·The World Journal of Biological Psychiatry

Abstract

Objectives: Herbs are frequently and concurrently used with prescribed drugs by patients worldwide. While clinical trials have found some herbs to be as useful as standard psychiatric drugs, most clinicians are unaware of their pharmacological mechanisms.Methods: We searched English language and other language literature with English abstracts listed in PubMed website, supplemented by additional through Google Scholar’s free academic paper abstract website for publications on herbs, focussing on their clinical use in mental disorders, their neurobiology and their pharmacology.Results: A major reason for herbs remaining outside of mainstream psychiatry is that the terminology and concepts in herbal medicine are not familiar to psychiatrists in general. Many publications regarding the use of herbal medicine for psychiatric disorders are deficient in details regarding diagnosis, criteria for response and the neurobiology details compared with publications on standard psychotropic drugs. Nomenclature for herbal medicine is usually confusing and is not conducive to an easy understanding of their mode of action in psychiatric disorders.Conclusions: The recent neuroscience-based nomenclature (NbN) for psychotropics methodology would be a logical application to herbal medicine in facilitating a better understanding of the use of herbal medicine in psychiatry.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/15622975.2017.1346279

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Tang, S. W., Tang, W. H., & Leonard, B. E.
Affiliations
  • University of California, Irvine (US)
  • Institute of Brain Medicine, Hong Kong, Hong Kong;
  • Ollscoil na Gaillimhe – University of Galway (IE)
Corresponding author
Tang, Siu W.
Venue
The World Journal of Biological Psychiatry
Published
2017-07-11
Volume
20
Issue
8
Pages
586-604
ISSN
  • 1562-2975 (ISSN-L)
  • 1814-1412
OpenAlex
W2689255785
Cited by
11
References
2
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 3
FWCI
0.35
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • The World Journal of Biological Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Complementary and alternative medicine › Medicinal Plant Extracts Effects
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Complementary and alternative medicine › Complementary and Alternative Medicine Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Complementary and alternative medicine › Traditional Chinese Medicine Studies
Keywords
herbal medicine, mental illness, psychopharmacology, mechanism of action, neurobiology, psychotropic drugs, herb-drug interactions
MeSH terms
Mental Disorders, Humans, Phytotherapy, Neurosciences, Plants, Medicinal, Psychiatry, Psychopharmacology, Psychotropic Drugs, Herbal Medicine

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review