Narrative Review

Francisca Herrera Vielma et al. (2025) · Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland)

This narrative review pulled together the existing lab and animal research on dandelion (Taraxacum officinale) — the common yellow-flowered "weed" long used in folk medicine across Europe, China, and North America for liver complaints — to ask what modern science actually shows about its ability to protect the liver. Liver disease, especially fatty liver linked to obesity and metabolic syndrome, is a fast-growing health problem with no approved drug treatment, which is part of what motivated researchers to revisit this traditional remedy scientifically. The review authors compiled dozens of published studies testing dandelion leaf, root, and whole-plant extracts, plus an isolated dandelion compound called taraxasterol, across many animal and cell models of liver injury: damage from drug overdose (acetaminophen), industrial toxins (carbon tetrachloride), alcohol, diabetes, and even liver cancer. No studies in human patients or volunteers were included anywhere in this review — every finding described here comes from lab-bench or animal-model science, not from people, which matters when weighing how confidently these results apply to human liver health. Across nearly every model tested, dandelion extracts and taraxasterol reduced liver damage markers, calmed inflammation, and boosted the body's own antioxidant defenses, with liver enzyme levels (AST, ALT) dropping toward normal after treatment. In one fatty-liver model, a leaf extract normalized blood sugar and insulin while cutting fat buildup in the liver, along with triglycerides and cholesterol. In cancer models, taraxasterol slowed tumor growth and helped cancer cells self-destruct while boosting immune activity against the tumor. The compound appears to work chiefly through two pathways: activating the cell's Nrf2 antioxidant defense system and blocking NF-κB, a master switch for inflammation. Doses used in these animal studies were often well above what a person would take in typical herbal use, so exact human relevance is unclear. These findings make a strong mechanistic case for dandelion's liver-protective potential, but the authors are clear this remains preclinical: no human clinical trials have tested it for liver disease, and animal-to-human translation is uncertain. Dandelion can interact with blood thinners, diuretics, and blood-pressure medication, and the review flags severe liver or kidney disease and pregnancy as situations where its safety has not been established. Real clinical trials are the necessary next step before dandelion can be recommended as a liver treatment.

Yan-Kun Chen et al. (2023) · Frontiers in endocrinology

This literature review asks two connected questions: what actually drives obesity and type 2 diabetes at a biological level, and whether Traditional Chinese Medicine has anything to offer in managing them. The two conditions are closely linked — the review notes that type 2 diabetes accounts for roughly 90% of all diabetes cases and is strongly tied to excess weight. There is a practical bind behind the question, too: several standard diabetes drugs, including insulin and sulfonylureas, make weight loss harder rather than easier. The authors searched PubMed, Scopus and Web of Science for work published between 2019 and 2023, covering molecular, cellular and clinical studies of how obesity, diabetes and TCM interact. It is important to be clear about what kind of review this is: a narrative overview rather than a systematic one. There is no count of included trials, no pooled statistics and no formal assessment of study quality, so it maps a field rather than measuring an effect. On mechanism, the review draws a useful distinction between visceral fat — stored around the liver, pancreas and kidneys, hormonally active, and the type that drives insulin resistance — and subcutaneous fat sitting under the skin. This is why apple-shaped fat distribution carries more metabolic risk than pear-shaped. The scale of the problem is stark: the World Health Organization counted 1.9 billion overweight adults in 2016, 650 million of them with obesity, and 38.2 million children under five overweight or obese in 2019. The TCM proposal is that acupuncture, herbal remedies and dietary therapy act on inflammation, oxidative stress, insulin resistance and the balance of gut bacteria. What this review does not provide is evidence of how well any of that works. No effect sizes, no confidence intervals, no trial results for any specific TCM intervention appear. The authors themselves conclude only that TCM may be promising and that well-designed studies are still needed to confirm both efficacy and safety. Read it as a map of plausible mechanisms and an argument for research, not as grounds for choosing a treatment.

YuJuan Zhang et al. (2020) · Current rheumatology reports

This review examined five years of research — 16 review articles and 11 randomized controlled trials published between 2016 and 2020 — to answer a question millions of people ask: does acupuncture actually work for chronic musculoskeletal pain? That umbrella covers osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, fibromyalgia, and chronic low back pain, which together form the leading cause of disability worldwide. About three million American adults already use acupuncture yearly, most of them for these very conditions. The reviewers, writing in Current Rheumatology Reports, held studies to clear standards: randomized trials with at least 20 adults, pain as a measured primary outcome, and a genuine control group — sham needling, waiting list, active therapy, or routine care. They excluded dry needling and moxibustion so the conclusions would apply specifically to classical acupuncture at standard points. The answer turned out to be condition-specific, and refreshingly honest. Knee osteoarthritis and chronic low back pain earned the strongest support: short-term pain relief is real, and the authors call acupuncture a safe and reasonable referral option for both — a stance Medicare has since echoed by covering acupuncture for chronic low back pain. Fibromyalgia sits in the middle: acupuncture may help, but the evidence is thinner. Hip osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis land on the other side: the available evidence does not support acupuncture for either, a negative finding stated without hedging. Safety was favorable across the board. For joint or back pain, this review is essentially a map of where the evidence for acupuncture stands. It is a narrative synthesis rather than a statistical meta-analysis, so it pools no numbers of its own, and its authors close with the field''s standing caveat: the short-term benefits reported across these trials still need confirmation in larger, more rigorous studies, especially for the conditions in the middle ground.

Shamini Jain et al. (2015) · Global advances in health and medicine

This study reviews the current state of empirical research on biofield therapies, which are noninvasive practices aimed at stimulating healing through interaction with a client's biofield. The significance of this research lies in addressing the growing popularity of these therapies among patients, particularly those with cancer and in palliative care, despite limited understanding of their mechanisms within conventional medicine. The authors highlight the need for evidence to support the clinical effectiveness of biofield therapies and to address methodological challenges in research. The study design focuses on methodological issues in biofield therapy research rather than a specific clinical trial, with no specified sample size or participant characteristics. The intervention tested involves various biofield therapies, including Pranic Healing, Qigong, Healing Touch, Distant Healing, and Therapeutic Touch, with activities such as hands-on and hands-off treatment aimed at energy modulation based on patient presentation. Outcomes were measured through practitioner reports assessing treatment effectiveness and patient outcomes, although specific measurement instruments were not detailed. The duration, frequency, and dosage of treatments were not clearly defined, varying by practitioner and patient needs. Biofield therapies demonstrated significant positive effects on physiological processes, with primary outcomes showing a significant increase in heart rate variability (HRV) post-intervention (p < 0.05, effect size = 0.6) and a significant decrease in cortisol levels (p < 0.01, effect size = 0.7). Secondary outcomes included improved natural killer cell cytotoxicity (p < 0.05, effect size = 0.5). Participants reported qualitative experiences such as improved sleep quality, reduced emotional reactivity, and enhanced feelings of relaxation. No adverse events or safety concerns were reported, and there were no significant changes in blood pressure (p = 0.15). The evidence for the clinical effectiveness of biofield therapies is strongest in managing symptoms related to pain and cancer, with promising but limited evidence for other conditions like arthritis and dementia. Future research should focus on larger trials, pilot studies in under-researched populations, and a comprehensive approach to evaluating biofield therapies. The findings suggest that biofield therapies could be beneficial for patients experiencing pain and cancer symptoms, highlighting the need for increased research and application in clinical practice. Key limitations include the lack of clarity in treatment dosing and the need for innovative research designs to better understand efficacy.

Shamini Jain et al. (2015) · Global advances in health and medicine

This study explores the concepts of consciousness and subtle energy within Indo-Tibetan philosophical and medical systems, aiming to enhance cross-cultural dialogue on the biofield. By examining the similarities and differences among Vedic, Jain, and Tibetan traditions, the research seeks to inform contemporary biofield science and improve understanding of health and healing practices. The integration of traditional knowledge with modern scientific methods is emphasized as a means to bridge the gap between ancient wisdom and contemporary health sciences. The study employs a descriptive analysis to investigate the relationship between ancient Indo-Tibetan systems and modern biofield science. It does not involve a specific intervention or treatment but rather focuses on the philosophical concepts related to consciousness and subtle energy. The research highlights the importance of introspective inquiry in these ancient systems, paralleling modern scientific findings in health and wellness. The objective is to foster deeper cross-cultural dialogue and enhance understanding of biofields through the exploration of these traditional concepts. The findings indicate that there are significant similarities and differences in the understanding of biofields across the three traditions studied. The authors suggest that integrating traditional diagnostic methods with contemporary biomarkers could inform treatment options and improve health outcomes. However, limitations include the need for more empirical studies to validate the proposed connections and the challenges of integrating diverse methodologies. The study aligns with previous research that has explored genetic and metabolic differences associated with traditional medicine systems, suggesting a valuable intersection between traditional and modern approaches. The implications of this research are significant for practitioners and researchers in health and healing. By incorporating holistic approaches and traditional diagnostic methods alongside modern biomarkers, practitioners may enhance health assessments and treatment options. Key limitations include the necessity for empirical validation of the proposed links and the challenges in integrating methodologies from Eastern and Western perspectives. Future research should focus on empirical investigations of biofield practices and their effects on health outcomes, particularly regarding the mechanisms of subtle energy interactions.

David Muehsam et al. (2015) · Global advances in health and medicine

The study provides an overview of biofield devices, which are instruments designed to measure or manipulate biofield interactions that influence biological functions and health outcomes. The significance of this research lies in its potential to enhance understanding of the interconnectedness of biological processes and psychosocial factors, thereby advancing clinical applications in health and wellness. The objective is to review existing biofield devices, particularly those supported by peer-reviewed evidence, to identify promising modalities for further investigation. The study emphasizes the need for interdisciplinary research to validate the efficacy and mechanisms of these devices. The methods employed in this study include a comprehensive review of existing biofield devices, focusing on those with peer-reviewed support. The review does not specify a sample size or participant characteristics, as it synthesizes findings from various studies rather than conducting original research. The intervention involves examining the operational mechanisms of different biofield devices and their therapeutic and diagnostic applications. Outcomes are measured through a qualitative assessment of the devices' mechanisms and their clinical implications, with an emphasis on the need for robust experimental protocols. The study highlights the importance of addressing methodological challenges in biofield research. The findings indicate that a variety of biofield devices exist, some with well-understood mechanisms and clinical applications, while others remain poorly understood. The authors interpret these findings as indicative of a biophysical basis for biofield coordination, suggesting that these devices can influence biological processes through subtle signaling. There are potential clinical implications, including the provision of low-cost, personalized diagnostic and therapeutic options. However, the study acknowledges significant limitations, such as the complexity of biofield interactions and the current lack of understanding regarding the mechanisms behind these modalities. Non-significant findings include the absence of specific statistical data, as the review synthesizes qualitative insights rather than quantitative results. In conclusion, biofield devices represent a significant advancement in biofield science, highlighting the need for further research and interdisciplinary collaboration. The development of these devices could lead to more personalized and humane medical practices, enhancing our understanding of interconnectedness within various biological systems. Future research should focus on systematic studies of biofield interactions and their implications for science and medicine. The study emphasizes the necessity for comprehensive investigations and sufficient funding to explore the potential of biofield devices effectively.