PCMWiki is not a medical guide. We do not diagnose, treat, prescribe, or recommend. What we do is collect, translate, and contextualize traditional knowledge about Chinese patent medicines (中成药). To do that responsibly, we treat three different kinds of "truth" separately and visibly — so that "this formula has been used for centuries" and "modern evidence is still thin" can sit next to each other on the same page without one being mistaken for the other.
01
Classical sources
Every entry that has a classical pedigree carries a "Classical source" row in the three-layers section, anchored to a specific named text and a specific year when the formula first appears in that text (or our best documented approximation of it).
If we cannot trace a formula to a named classical source, we do not write one. The "Compiled from" block at the bottom of each entry and the "Classical source" row in the three-layers section both stay silent — we believe a missing source is more honest than a vague one.
We do not paraphrase a classical indication into modern clinical language. The classical text says what it says, and we report it as quoted, with the year, so the reader can decide how much weight to put on it.
02
Pharmacopoeia indications
A second, separate layer is the official "function and indication" (功能主治) as published in the Chinese Pharmacopoeia (《中华人民共和国药典》), the regulatory reference that licenses a formula for over-the-counter sale in mainland China.
We quote the Chinese text and provide an English translation. We deliberately do not soften the legal language into "traditionally used for": the pharmacopoeia is a regulatory document, and the regulatory ambiguity of its wording is part of what we are trying to make visible.
Where the pharmacopoeia indication is broad (the kind of language that lets a formula sit on a shelf next to many different conditions), we do not narrow it. Broad is what it is, and the reader should see that.
03
Modern research status
A third, separate layer is the modern evidence base. We search PubMed for systematic reviews and major randomized controlled trials associated with the formula. Each entry is then tagged with one of five research statuses, ranging from "no systematic review identified" to "modern systematic reviews support the traditional claim".
"No systematic review identified" is treated as a legitimate answer, not a hole. Many formulas in the Chinese traditional pharmacopoeia simply have not been studied at the systematic-review level, and we do not paper over that with vague language about "emerging research".
The boundary between "supports tradition" and "inconclusive" is conservative: if a review calls the evidence "insufficient" or "low quality", we tag the entry as inconclusive, not as supportive. We prefer to under-claim.
Everything on PCMWiki is compiled from historical texts, the Chinese Pharmacopoeia, and the modern research literature. None of it is medical advice, and none of it is a recommendation to use or avoid any product. For decisions about your own health, please consult a qualified practitioner familiar with both Chinese and Western medicine.