Traditional Chinese Medicine: Evidence, Safety, and Product Risk

Key Takeaways

Traditional Chinese medicine covers practices with very different evidence. The label tells you almost nothing about whether 1 treatment works.

• WHO reports that traditional medicine is used in 170 Member States. Reporting use is not an endorsement of efficacy. WHO also states that the ICD-11 traditional-medicine chapter neither judges nor endorses the scientific validity of a practice or intervention. [1]
• The mortality estimates in the Nobel summary concern artemisinin-based combination therapy for malaria, not artemisinin used alone. Combination therapy matters because monotherapy can promote resistance. [2]
• A 39-trial individual-participant meta-analysis found that acupuncture had a modest advantage over sham and a larger advantage over no-acupuncture controls for specified chronic pain conditions. This does not establish efficacy for every condition or validate a meridian anatomy. [3]
• The often-quoted 24% adulteration result came from 2,609 samples referred by eight Taiwan hospitals because adulteration was suspected. It demonstrates a serious problem in that selected sample, not a worldwide prevalence for every Chinese herbal product. [4]
• Tai chi can be useful in selected populations and programs. No trial makes one frequency or format suitable for every adult aged 50 to 80. Balance, symptoms, comorbidity, supervision, and the purpose of the program affect safety and dose. [5]