Plain-English answer
Do not source TCM pages as if all claims belong to the same evidence category. Historical claims need historical sources. Claims about China's modern TCM sector need law, agency, hospital, and education sources. Claims about herbs, acupuncture, clinical effectiveness, and safety need clinical and pharmacological evidence. Claims about global classification need WHO sources. Claims about U.S. readers' interpretation need neutral evidence summaries such as NCCIH.
Source map
| Topic | Best sources | What to avoid |
|---|---|---|
| Modern TCM governance in China | China's TCM law, NHC/NATCM materials, hospital and education sources. | Treating TCM only as folk culture or only as product regulation. |
| International traditional medicine policy | WHO traditional medicine strategy and ICD-11 traditional medicine FAQ. | Presenting ICD coding as proof of clinical efficacy. |
| Clinical evidence | Systematic reviews, trials, NCCIH summaries, safety literature. | Using cultural legitimacy as clinical proof, or dismissing all practices without condition-specific evidence. |
| Herbal products | NMPA/NATCM, pharmacology, adverse-event and quality sources. | Assuming all herbal products share the same risk, evidence, or regulatory status. |
| Hospitals and services | NHC/NATCM, hospital profiles, insurance and service-delivery sources. | Confusing a hospital department, a practitioner tradition, and a commercial supplement market. |
Evidence boundaries
WHO's traditional medicine strategy is a policy document about how countries can govern traditional and complementary medicine; it is not a blanket endorsement of every therapy. WHO's ICD-11 traditional medicine chapter is a classification tool intended to count and compare traditional medicine conditions, not a clinical guideline. NCCIH is useful for U.S. readers because it separates the existence of clinical studies from the strength and condition-specific relevance of evidence. This distinction matters: acupuncture, tai chi, herbal products, hospital-based TCM, and classical theory should not be collapsed into one yes-or-no claim.
Safety sourcing is equally important.
How to use it
A TCM history page should explain institutional change, including modern standardization and state support. A TCM regulation page should discuss the 2016 law and product oversight. A TCM evidence page should name the condition, intervention, comparator, outcome, safety issue, and evidence quality. A TCM market page should distinguish hospital services, prescription products, over-the-counter products, exports, wellness services, and cultural branding. The goal is neither promotional writing nor reflexive dismissal; it is precise classification of the claim being made.
That classification matters because TCM pages often attract overbroad claims. A hospital-based acupuncture service, a classical diagnostic concept, a patented herbal product, a dietary supplement exported to the United States, and a WHO coding category are not the same thing. They have different evidence standards, regulatory routes, safety issues, and commercial implications. Good sourcing keeps those categories separate and prevents a cultural or policy source from being used as if it were a clinical trial.
Research anchors
- WHO Traditional Medicine Strategy 2014-2023 for policy and health-system governance framing.
- WHO traditional medicine and ICD-11 FAQ for classification scope and limits.
- NCCIH Traditional Chinese Medicine summary for U.S. evidence and safety framing.
- NCCIH acupuncture evidence and safety summary for condition-specific evidence caution.
- NHC report on China's TCM law for the 2016 legal milestone.