Tibetan Medicine

Galib Ruknuddin et al. (2026) · JMIR research protocols

This paper is not a study of a treatment — it is a detailed, PROSPERO-registered plan (protocol) for a future systematic review that will evaluate India's AYUSH traditional medicine systems (Ayurveda, yoga and naturopathy, Unani, Siddha, Sowa Rigpa/Tibetan medicine, and homeopathy — governing prevention and personalized care) for managing prediabetes and type 2 diabetes. Diabetes affects roughly 537 million people worldwide, a number expected to more than double by 2050, and India alone had over 74 million cases in 2021 — with about half going undiagnosed — making a clear-eyed evidence review of its traditional treatment options a genuine public-health priority. Once underway, two independent researchers will search major databases (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Embase) plus AYUSH-specific sources, screening for studies conducted in India that test any of these six systems — whether used alone or alongside standard diabetes care — measuring outcomes like blood sugar levels (fasting and after meals), long-term blood sugar control (HbA1c), and insulin resistance, alongside safety data. As of this publication, there are no results to report (the review had not yet started; database searching was planned for September 2025). What the protocol does establish is exactly how quality will be judged: each study will be scored with standard tools (from the NIH, and the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials) and then sorted into a visual "evidence map" — graded green, yellow, or red by the World Health Organization's A/B/C evidence-quality scale — showing at a glance where each traditional system has strong support and where the gaps are. The completed review and its findings are expected around December 2026, with publication in early 2027. For now, the practical takeaway is that this protocol tells us what will be studied and how carefully, not what was found. Until the finished evidence map is published, none of the six systems named here has established evidence for diabetes management; the protocol itself states upfront limitations even for the eventual review: English-language sources only, India-based studies only, and no pooled statistical meta-analysis planned.

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.