Bhapkar Vedvati, Nisargand Vallari, Godatwar Pawankumar, Bhalerao Supriya
Department of Rasashastra and Bhaishajya Kalpana, D. Y. Patil deemed to be University School of Ayurveda, Nerul, Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra, India.
Obesity-Diabetes Lab, Interactive Research School for Health Affairs, Bharati Vidyapeeth (Deemed to be) University, Pune, Maharashtra, India.
J Ayurveda Integr Med. 2025 Mar-Apr;16(2):101078. doi: 10.1016/j.jaim.2024.101078. Epub 2025 Feb 8.
Despite strong presence of biomedicine, traditional and complementary medicine (T & CM) systems have sustained with their multidimensional connect with people. However, their scientific acceptance and mainstreaming falls short due to inadequacies in research. Also, available reports in this regard scarcely focus on their individuality and present them as a consolidated entity.
The present study was carried out to elucidate individual research status of certain WHO- acknowledged T & CM systems in a customized framework of indirect indicators.
The research status of selected systems was assessed on basis of quantitative indicators viz., research dissemination outcomes concerned with scientific documents and researchers, contribution in COVID-19 prevention and management, and patents profile.
Systems such as Traditional Chinese Medicine and Acupuncture fare better than most others. The number of documents in multidisciplinary SCOPUS database was larger than those in PubMed, a healthcare database for almost all systems. Out of 28 lead authors, half belonged to developed countries, viz., USA and Germany. Highest citation count was recorded for TCM (n = 2238). Of the 105 journals analyzed, 40 were not dedicated to specific T & CM system. Most number of discretely dedicated journals (n = 20) mentioned TCM as primary scope. Cochrane systematic reviews (n = 142) and protocols (n = 33) were highest for Acupuncture, while many systems had zero presence. Maximum COVID-19 related clinical studies were registered for TCM (n = 335), followed by Ayurveda (n = 112). TCM related patents were also highest among all.
There is a huge variation in the research status of different T & CM systems. The stakeholders of these systems need to establish a strong evidence base at par with biomedicine. United efforts at global level through organizations such as WHO-Global Traditional Medicine Centre (GTMC) might be helpful in this regard.
尽管生物医学占据主导地位，但传统医学和补充医学（T&CM）体系凭借其与人们的多维度联系得以存续。然而，由于研究不足，它们在科学认可度和主流化方面仍存在欠缺。此外，这方面现有的报告很少关注其独特性，而是将它们作为一个统一的整体呈现。
本研究旨在通过一个定制的间接指标框架，阐明世界卫生组织认可的某些传统医学和补充医学体系的个体研究状况。
根据定量指标评估所选体系的研究状况，这些指标包括与科学文献和研究人员相关的研究传播成果、在新冠肺炎预防和管理方面的贡献以及专利情况。
诸如中医和针灸等体系的表现优于大多数其他体系。多学科的Scopus数据库中的文献数量多于PubMed（一个几乎涵盖所有体系的医疗数据库）中的文献数量。在28位主要作者中，有一半来自发达国家，即美国和德国。中医的被引次数最高（n = 2238）。在分析的105种期刊中，有40种并非专门针对特定的传统医学和补充医学体系。专门提及中医为主要范畴的期刊数量最多（n = 20）。针灸的Cochrane系统评价（n = 142）和方案（n = 33）数量最多，而许多体系的此类评价和方案数量为零。注册的与新冠肺炎相关的临床研究中，中医最多（n = 335），其次是阿育吠陀医学（n = 112）。中医相关专利在所有体系中也最多。
不同传统医学和补充医学体系的研究状况存在巨大差异。这些体系的利益相关者需要建立与生物医学相当的强有力的证据基础。通过世界卫生组织全球传统医学中心（GTMC）等组织在全球层面的共同努力，在这方面可能会有所帮助。
