Clinical trials and trial-like studies on the use of traditional Chinese medicine to treat endometriosis

In: Expert Review of Obstetrics & Gynecology · 2010 · vol. 5(5) , pp. 533–555 · doi:10.1586/eog.10.40 · W2106109907
article OA: closed CC0 ⤵ 7 in-corpus citations
View on OpenAlex View at publisher
AI-generated summary by claude@2026-06, 2026-06-08

This review identified 153 endometriosis clinical trials using traditional Chinese medicine, finding uniformly low study quality that questions efficacy and safety due to numerous methodological deficiencies.

One-sentence paraphrase of the abstract; not a substitute for reading it. No clinical advice. How this works

Abstract

There is a pressing need for the development of new therapeutics for endometriosis, and traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) is likely to be a treasure trove that will help to achieve this aim. We retrieved 851 papers on clinical studies evaluating the use of TCM to treat endometriosis that were published in the last 16 years and evaluated 153 of them that met our inclusion criteria. We found that the quality of these studies is well below an acceptable level, making it difficult to judge whether TCM is truly efficacious. There are signs that these studies, as a whole, have serious anomalies. The most glaringly deficient areas are informed consent, bias in evaluating outcome measures, follow-up, diagnosis, data analysis, report of adverse events and randomization. The uniformly low quality is alarming, given the large quantity of these studies, the enormous resources and energy put into these studies and, above all, the weighty issue of treatment efficacy that concerns each and every patient with endometriosis. Unless there is a dramatic change in attitude and practice, and perhaps an overhaul in education of research methodology, the efficacy and safety of TCM in treating endometriosis would remain questionable, which may force TCM into oblivion.

My notes (saved in your browser only)

Condition tags

endometriosis

Citation neighborhood

Papers in the corpus that this work cites (lower rings, blue) and that cite this one (upper rings, green). Dot size scales with the paper's in-corpus citation count — bigger dot = more influential within the endo/adeno field. Click a dot to open that paper. [ expand to 2 hops ] — adds papers reached through this work's immediate citers/citees. Heavier; up to 60 extra dots.

References (67)

Cited by (7)

Source provenance

openalex
last seen: 2026-06-10T17:14:06.276822+00:00
License: CC0 · commercial use OK