ReviewFrontiers in pharmacology2026
Traditional Chinese medicine-induced cardiac adverse reactions: a critical review of current evidence, knowledge gaps, and pharmacovigilance strategies.
Review in Frontiers in pharmacology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) holds considerable promise for managing cardiovascular conditions, but its cardiac safety continues to raise legitimate clinical concerns. In this critical review, we synthesize what is currently known about TCM related cardiac adverse reactions, including epidemiological patterns, offending botanical drug metabolites, toxicological pathways, and pharmacovigilance practices. What emerges from our systematic evaluation is a body of evidence that is surprisingly thin in key areas, with knowledge gaps that seriously undermine both risk assessment and clinical decision making. We argue that the field relies too heavily on descriptive case reports and spontaneous notifications, lacks validated causality tools suited to complex botanical drug matrices, and has yet to translate mechanistic discoveries into actionable predictive models. Methodological weaknesses are pervasive: pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic interaction data are scarce, real world evidence remains underused in regulatory contexts, and no specific biomarkers exist for early detection of cardiac injury. Preclinical findings, moreover, are difficult to extrapolate to human physiology, and post marketing surveillance systems lag far behind what is needed. In response, we outline a practical agenda that prioritises TCM tailored pharmacovigilance protocols, leverages advanced analytical and computational platforms, and calls for stronger international data sharing frameworks. Our ultimate aim is not merely to catalogue problems, but to offer a critical yet constructive foundation for advancing the cardiac safety science of TCM, so that its integration into global healthcare can proceed on firmer, more evidence based ground.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.