Placebo-controlled trials of Chinese herbal medicine and conventional medicine comparative study
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Chinese herbal medicine (CHM) is increasingly used in the West, but the evidence on its effectiveness is a matter of debate. We compared the characteristics, study quality and results of clinical trials of CHM and conventional medicine. METHODS: Comparative study of placebo-controlled trials of CHM and conventional medicine. Eleven bibliographic databases and searches by hand of 48 Chinese-language journals. Conventional medicine trials matched for condition and type of outcome were randomly selected from the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (issue 1, 2003). Trials described as double-blind, with adequate generation of allocation sequence and adequate concealment of allocation, were assumed to be of high quality. Data were analysed using funnel plots and multivariable meta-regression models. RESULTS: 136 CHM trials (119 published in Chinese, 17 published in English) and 136 matched conventional medicine trials (125 published in English) were analysed. The quality of Chinese-language CHM trials tended to be lower than that of English-language CHM trials and conventional medicine trials. Three (2%) CHM trials and 10 (7%) conventional medicine trials were of high quality. In all groups, smaller trials showed more beneficial treatment effects than larger trials. CHM trials published in Chinese showed considerably larger effects than CHM trials published in English (adjusted ratio of ORs 0.29, 95% confidence intervals 0.17-0.52). CONCLUSIONS: Biases are present both in placebo-controlled trials of CHM and conventional medicine, but may be most pronounced in CHM trials published in Chinese-language journals. Only few CHM trials of adequate methodology exist and the effectiveness of CHM therefore remains poorly documented.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Much local research has been devoted to understanding the effectiveness and mechanisms of medicinal plants, isolating components for drug production, or eventual clinical use.
“As a consequence, much local research has been devoted to understanding their effectiveness, mechanisms of action, isolation of components adaptable for drug production or eventual use in clinical trials (Tang et al., 2017, Ntie-Kang et al., 2014, Shang et al., 2007).”
From African neuroscience on the global stage: Nigeria as a model (2019) · cites this paper as Shang et al., 2007
The ‘Implications and future research’ section calls for trials of herbal preparations’ effectiveness and research to identify their active components. It does not establish that much local research has already been devoted to these aims, or address mechanisms of action or isolating components for drug production. (LLM, conf=0.84)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredMedicinal plants have been used across Africa for centuries to treat disease.
“Next, across Africa medicinal plants have been used for centuries to treat disease.”
From African neuroscience on the global stage: Nigeria as a model (2019) · cites this paper as Shang et al., 2007
The Introduction describes traditional Chinese medicine as originating in China, and the paper examines trials of Chinese herbal medicine. Searches for medicinal-plant use in Africa and its history found no passage addressing the claim that plants have been used across Africa for centuries to treat disease. (LLM, conf=0.78)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
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
Investigating and dealing with publication and other biases in meta-analysis
Sterne, J. A. C., Egger, M., & Smith, G. D. (2001) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.323.7304.101 · Cited by 2,225 · see citing works
Self-citation<i>meta-analysis</i> bias in location and selection of studies
Egger, M., & Smith, G. D. (1998) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.316.7124.61 · Cited by 1,374 · see citing works
Self-citation
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 21
- Hesketh T, Zhu WX. Health in China. Traditional Chinese medicine: one country, two systems. BMJ 1997;315:115-17.
- Eisenberg DM, Davis RB, Ettner SL et al. Trends in alternative medicine use in the United States, 1990-1997: results of a follow-up national survey. JAMA 1998;280:1569-75.
- Nestler G. Traditional Chinese medicine. Med Clin North Am 2002;86:63-73.
- Linde K, ter Riet G, Hondras M, Vickers A, Saller R, Melchart D. Systematic reviews of complementary therapies -an annotated bibliography. Part 2: Herbal medicine. BMC Complement Altern Med 2001;1:5.
- Pittler MH, Abbot NC, Harkness EF, Ernst E. Location bias in controlled clinical trials of complementary/alternative therapies. J Clin Epidemiol 2000;53:485-89.
- Liu C, Douglas RM. Chinese herbal medicines in the treatment of acute respiratory infections: a review of randomised and controlled clinical trials. Med J Aust 1998;169:579-82.
- Armstrong NC, Ernst E. The treatment of eczema with Chinese herbs: a systematic review of randomized clinical trials. Br J Pharmacol 1999;48:262-64.
- Tang JL, Zhan SY, Ernst E. Review of randomised controlled trials of traditional Chinese medicine. BMJ 1999;319:160-61.
- Schulz KF, Chalmers I, Hayes RJ, Altman D. Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. JAMA 1995;273:408-12.
- Dickersin K, Manheimer E, Wieland S, Robinson KA, Lefebvre C, McDonald S. Development of the Cochrane Collaboration's CENTRAL Register of controlled clinical trials. Eval Health Prof 2002;25:38-64.
- Ju ¨ni P, Altman DG, Egger M. Assessing the quality of controlled clinical trials. BMJ 2001;323:42-46.
- Hasselblad V, Hedges LV. Meta-analysis of screening and diagnostic tests. Psychol Bull 1995;117:167-78.
- Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ 2003;327:557-60.
- Sterne JAC, Egger M. Funnel plots for detecting bias in meta-analysis: guidelines on choice of axis. J Clin Epidemiol 2001;54:1046-55.
- Thompson SG, Sharp SJ. Explaining heterogeneity in meta-analysis: A comparison of methods. Stat Med 1999;18:2693-708.
- Higgins JP, Thompson SG. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta- analysis. Stat Med 2002;21:1539-58.
- Ioannidis JP, Lau J. Completeness of safety reporting in randomized trials: an evaluation of 7 medical areas. JAMA 2001;285:437-43.
- Huwiler-Mu ¨ntener K, Ju ¨ni P, Junker C, Egger M. Quality of reporting of randomized trials as a measure of methodological quality. JAMA 2002;287:2801-04.
- Shang A, Huwiler-Muntener K, Nartey L et al. Are the clinical effects of homoeopathy placebo effects? Comparative study of placebo-controlled trials of homoeopathy and allopathy. Lancet 2005;366:726-32.
- Vickers A, Goyal N, Harland R, Rees R. Do certain countries produce only positive results? A systematic review of controlled trials. Control Clin Trials 1998;19:159-66.
- Ernst E. Herbal medicines: where is the evidence? BMJ 2000;321:395-96.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
African neuroscience on the global stage: Nigeria as a model
Maina, M. B., Mohammed, Y. G., Bukar, A. M., Ahmad, U., Tijjani Salihu, A., Ibrahim, H. A., Abdurrazak, M., Hamidu, S. K., Yaro, A. U., Awadelkareem, M. A., et al. (2019) · European Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1111/ejn.14372 · Cited by 16 · see citing works
- Authors
- Shang, A., Huwiler, K., Nartey, L., Juni, P., & Egger, M.
- Affiliations
- University of Bern (CH)
- Corresponding author
- Egger, M.
- ORCID
- Egger, M.
- Venue
- International Journal of Epidemiology
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2007-06-29
- Volume
- 36
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 1086-1092
- ISSN
- 0300-5771 (ISSN-L)
- 1464-3685
- OpenAlex
- W2150432115
- Cited by
- 50
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2025: 3 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 4
- FWCI
- 6.01
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- International Journal of Epidemiology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- BORIS (University Library Bern) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- Open Access CRIS of the University of Bern
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Complementary and alternative medicine › Complementary and Alternative Medicine Studies
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Complementary and alternative medicine › Medical Research and Treatments
- Keywords
- Chinese herbal medicine, Western medicine, trial quality, publication bias, language bias, Chinese periodicals, meta-regression, funnel plot, allocation concealment, trial size
- MeSH terms
- Drugs, Chinese Herbal, Humans, Language, Medicine, Chinese Traditional, Phytotherapy, Publishing, Research Design, Bias, Treatment Outcome, Controlled Clinical Trials as Topic
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
