Sex- and gender-specific differences in efficacy and safety of traditional Chinese medicine: a scoping review
A scoping review found only 16 studies addressing sex/gender differences in traditional Chinese medicine interventions, exposing a critically sparse evidence base.
| Population | — |
|---|---|
| Intervention | — |
| Comparator | — |
| Outcome | — |
What the study showed
Included studies suggested that relevant outcome measures varied according to sex. The abstract does not detail the direction or magnitude of these differences, precluding quantitative conclusions. Heterogeneity across study designs (RCTs, animal experiments, non-randomized and single-arm trials) limits robust synthesis.
How it was done
Scoping review following JBI methodology, searching six Chinese and English databases from inception to July 2025. Of 6,720 records identified, 16 studies were included after title, abstract, and full-text screening.
Risk of bias
Only 16 studies included from over 6,700 records signals a critical shortage of primary evidence. The abstract is truncated, preventing assessment of specific results, proposed mechanisms, and the authors' full conclusions.
What this study does NOT prove
This review does not prove that traditional Chinese medicine interventions should be differentiated by sex, nor that observed differences are clinically relevant or replicable.
In clinical practice
There is insufficient evidence to recommend sex- or gender-based adjustments to traditional Chinese medicine interventions in clinical practice. Findings should be interpreted cautiously given the small number and heterogeneity of included studies.
Limitations
Only 16 studies included from over 6,700 records signals a critical shortage of primary evidence. The abstract is truncated, preventing assessment of specific results, proposed mechanisms, and the authors' full conclusions.
Technical appendix
Version history
- 1.0 · 2026-07-30 — Auto-generated under Evidence Standard v1.0
Paid access: structured summary from public metadata; consult the original study at the source.