Commission E: Difference between revisions
CSV import |
CSV import |
||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 29: | Line 29: | ||
{{medicine-stub}} | {{medicine-stub}} | ||
{{No image}} | |||
__NOINDEX__ | |||
Latest revision as of 07:45, 17 March 2025
Commission E is a scientific advisory board that was established by the German Federal Institute for Drugs and Medical Devices (BfArM) in 1978. The primary role of Commission E is to evaluate and approve the use of herbal medicine in Germany. The commission's work has been instrumental in the development of phytotherapy, a branch of medicine that uses plant extracts as treatments for various health conditions.
History[edit]
Commission E was established in response to the Thalidomide tragedy in the 1960s, which led to the birth of thousands of children with severe physical deformities. The incident highlighted the need for stricter regulation of drugs and medical devices, leading to the creation of the BfArM and subsequently, Commission E.
Role and Function[edit]
The main function of Commission E is to evaluate the safety and efficacy of herbal medicines. The commission reviews scientific literature and clinical studies to determine whether a particular plant extract can be used as a treatment. If the evidence supports the use of the herb, the commission will approve it and publish a monograph detailing its medicinal uses, dosage, and potential side effects.
Monographs[edit]
Commission E has published over 300 monographs on various herbs. These monographs serve as a guide for healthcare professionals and patients, providing detailed information on the use of herbal medicine. Each monograph includes information on the plant's botanical characteristics, medicinal uses, dosage, and potential side effects.
Criticism and Controversy[edit]
Despite its significant contributions to phytotherapy, Commission E has faced criticism. Some critics argue that the commission's approval process is not rigorous enough, leading to the approval of herbs with little scientific evidence supporting their use. Others have raised concerns about the lack of transparency in the commission's decision-making process.
See Also[edit]
