Jump to: Page Content, Site Navigation, Site Search,
You are seeing this message because your web browser does not support basic web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.
BMJ 2005;331:62-63 (9 July), doi:10.1136/bmj.331.7508.62
A specific committee could help to distinguish unproved herbal therapies from more rational treatments
| The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below. |
Medicines derived from plants, such as digoxin, morphine, and vincristine, are important in conventional Western therapy. These examples also demonstrate that natural is not synonymous with innocuous, since these medicines have narrow safety margins. However, as with other conventional medicines, their licensing is based on three criteria: efficacy in a given indication; acceptable safety in usual therapeutic use; and quality of manufacture. Should we judge herbal medicines by the same criteria?
There are some herbal medicines of demonstrable efficacy: for example, in one trial a standard extract of Hypericum (St John's wort) was as effective as paroxetine in depression.1 For most herbal treatments, however, good trials of efficacy are lacking, and conducting them would be expensive. Ernst noted two years ago that systematic reviews provided good evidence of efficacy for just 11 herbal medicines and had found "promising but not convincing" results for nine more.2 Herbalists since the Englishman
-->
Robin E Ferner, director
West Midlands Centre for Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting, City Hospital, Birmingham B18 7QH
(r.e.ferner@bham.ac.uk)
Keith Beard, consultant physician
Mansionhouse Unit, Victoria Infirmary, Glasgow G41 3DX
Read all Rapid Responses