Traditional Use vs Research Evidence: How to Read Both

Traditional use tells you how people in a place and time used a plant. Research tells you what was measured when a specific product was tested in cells, animals or people. They answer different questions, so this library keeps them apart and labels each one. A long history of use is not proof that a product works or is safe, and a traditional use is never dismissed just because it has not been tested.

How the sources define the terms

WHO describes traditional medicine as practices, skills, knowledge and philosophies that originate in different historical and cultural contexts, which are distinct from and pre-date biomedicine, and evolving with science for current use from an experience-based origin. [1] It emphasizes nature-based remedies and holistic, personalized approaches. [1]

Research here means studies that look at a defined plant part, preparation and amount in a defined group of people or in the laboratory. NCCIH notes that the amount of scientific evidence varies widely: a lot of information on some supplements, very little on others. [2]

Examples: tradition and research side by side

Each row separates what a source says about traditional use from what it says about research. Labels are explained below.

Two patterns stand out. First, a herb with a long tradition can still show no benefit in a particular test, as with echinacea for colds. Second, tradition does not show safety: black cohosh has a long history of use and also has reports of serious liver injury.

Why the form studied matters

A result for one plant part, extract, product or preparation does not carry over to another (tea, tincture, capsule, extract or food). NCCIH notes that the ginger studies mostly tested supplements rather than foods. [8] It also notes that supplements you buy may differ in important ways from the products tested in studies. [2] See fresh vs dried vs extract.

Labels used across this library

Every guide uses the same plain labels for research, so you can compare herbs fairly:

• Established: consistent findings from well-run human studies, as described by an official body or systematic review.
• Promising but limited: some human studies point to a benefit, but they are small, short or few.
• Mixed: studies disagree.
• Insufficient evidence: not enough human research to say.
• No good evidence of benefit: studies were done and did not show a benefit, or a source states there is no good evidence.
• Evidence of harm: a source documents harm or reports cases of harm.
• Preclinical (cells or animals): laboratory findings that may not apply to people. We keep these apart from human trials.
• Traditional use only: described by sources as traditional, with no human trial evidence found.
• Marketing claim: a claim made to sell a product, which may not be backed by research.
• Proper evidence not found: we searched named sources and found nothing usable. The page says what was searched.

We also keep a change in a lab marker apart from a clinical outcome that a person would notice.