↓ Skip to main content

Review of the regulations for clinical research in herbal medicines in USA

Overview of attention for article published in Chinese Journal of Integrative Medicine, November 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
17 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
71 Mendeley
Title
Review of the regulations for clinical research in herbal medicines in USA
Published in
Chinese Journal of Integrative Medicine, November 2014
DOI 10.1007/s11655-014-2024-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tony Yuqi Tang, Fang-zhou Li, Janyne Afseth

Abstract

In 2012, USA Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved 39 new drugs, however, there are only two botanical drugs (one topical and one oral) approved by FDA since the publication of the FDA's industry guidelines for the botanical drug product in June 2004. The approval shows the Western guideline can be used for herbal medicines, authors investigate current regulation on herbal medicine clinical research, identify challenges conducting clinical trials, and seek to produce some guidance for potential investigators and sponsors considering a clinical trial in this area. Key words were formulated for searching on Medline and FDA website to locate relevant regulations for clinical research in herbal medicines to understand current environment for herbal medicine usage and examine the barriers affecting herbal medicine in clinical trials. Authors critically explore case study of the 1st FDA approved botanical drugs, Veregen (sinecatechins), green tea leaves extract, a topical cream for perianal and genital condyloma. In consideration of current regulation environment in USA, based on the findings and analysis through the literature review and Veregen case study, authors produce and propose a Checklist for New Drug Application of Herbal Medicines for potential investigators and sponsors considering in a herbal medicine clinical trial.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 71 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Mexico 1 1%
Netherlands 1 1%
Unknown 69 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 15%
Student > Bachelor 11 15%
Student > Master 10 14%
Researcher 7 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 6%
Other 16 23%
Unknown 12 17%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 16 23%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 14 20%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 4%
Other 12 17%
Unknown 15 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 20 December 2014.
All research outputs
#20,952,842
of 25,734,859 outputs
Outputs from Chinese Journal of Integrative Medicine
#445
of 737 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#276,766
of 371,390 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Chinese Journal of Integrative Medicine
#11
of 17 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,734,859 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 737 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.2. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 371,390 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 17 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.