Where the work is still to be done.
Two lists, both counted from the live library. Pages where no traditional system yielded a remedy we could verify, and pages where the traditions speak but no clinical study sits on the shelf yet. Neither is a verdict on a tradition. Both are an invitation.
Last updated · 23 September 2026
How we search before a page is listed.
Our first search reads PubMed under the condition’s modern name. That misses studies in journals PubMed does not index, studies published before 2000, and studies filed under a tradition’s own term. So before any page here is raised with a research body we search again: PubMed with no date limit under every tradition’s own terms, Europe PMC, and by hand the AYUSH Research Portal and the research councils’ own publications. What was checked, and when, is written under each entry. “Not on the shelf” means we did not find it, never that it was not done. The full method is on the methodology page.
Where the traditions are quiet.
A published page with no traditional pane at all. It still holds the modern account, the safety floor and the lifestyle shifts.
- G6PD deficiencyLogged 16 September 2026
We could not verify a documented remedy for G6PD deficiency in any of the traditional systems on our shelf. This is the one condition where trying a traditional remedy is itself the hazard: a number of herbs and supplements can trigger the red-cell breakdown the condition is defined by. The widened search found no trial of any traditional remedy, and did find published case reports of haemolysis after herbal and naturopathic preparations. So the page holds a modern account, the avoidance list and the lifestyle shifts, and nothing else.
The question for a research group: Not a remedy trial. Tradition-facing safety guidance: which classical materia medica are oxidative triggers for people with G6PD deficiency. That list does not exist in the indexed literature and would protect readers across every system.
Second search 23 September 2026: PubMed, no date limit, every tradition's own terms; Europe PMC. Manual sources pending.
Open for study.
The traditions record a remedy for each of these, cited to a named text, pharmacopoeia or official guideline, and none of the traditional cards on the page has a clinical study on our shelf. That is the most concrete research question we can offer: the preparation is named, the tradition’s reasoning is written down, and the study is still to be done. Each page lists the traditions that speak on it. This list is counted live; the second search runs on a page before it goes into any brief, and a page leaves the list the hour a study lands.
- DehydrationAyurveda
- Low testosteroneAyurveda
- UTIAyurveda, Siddha, African medicine
- Growing painsAyurveda
- Plantar fasciitisAyurveda, Naturopathy
- Hair lossSiddha, Mind-body medicine
Pages still in draft are not listed. Every page on either list carries a button to be told when it grows; readers who press it are counted, and that count goes into every brief we send.
Who we raise a gap with.
- WHO Traditional MedicineThe team behind ICD-11's traditional medicine chapter, where traditional diagnoses meet modern coding.
- NCCIH (US National Institutes of Health)The largest funder of trials on traditional and complementary interventions.
- CCRAS, CCRUM and CCRS (Ministry of AYUSH, India)The research councils that commission studies in Ayurveda, Unani and Siddha.
- Japan Society for Oriental MedicineThe scholarly body for Kampo, with the PMDA-listed formulas as its evidence base.
- World Naturopathic FederationIts research committee sets the naturopathic research agenda across WHO regions.
- Cochrane Complementary MedicineFor prioritising a synthesis where trials exist but no review does.
Take one on.
If your group could study one of these, or you know a credible, documented source we have missed, tell us. We share our sourcing review and the reader-interest count for any entry.