What it is
This guide is a translation layer for names patients and families use in South Asian traditional therapies. It tells you what a name usually refers to, what human research has and has not studied, and where common filing mistakes happen.
It is not a formulary, not an advocacy project, and not a recommendation engine. It orients; it does not recommend. Finish an entry oriented, not obligated.
Where you will encounter it
- Before searching a name from a visit, a family conversation, or a pharmacy label
- When the same word appears in kitchen use, classical prescribing, and OTC marketing
- When you need to separate what was studied from what simply became familiar
- When a patient brings several products filed under one symptom or one shelf category
Further detail
How an entry works
The opening tells you what the name really refers to. The rest of the page gradually narrows the evidence to the actual object being discussed.
Each section should leave you with one new way to think about the object, not just one more fact about it. Facts alone are not enough. Each section answers the question the previous one naturally raises.
The three layers
The layer behind the name determines which evidence question applies.
Ingredient entries such as turmeric or giloy cover one plant or substance. Kitchen exposure, extract dose, and trial preparation are usually different questions.
Formulation entries such as Triphala or Arogyavardhini Vati cover named classical recipes. Evidence attaches to the named product, not to every herb on the label.
Product pattern entries such as chyawanprash-type or metabolic blend-type cover recognizable retail or cultural patterns where recipes and brands vary bottle to bottle.
Meta entries such as herbomineral / bhasma category frame a class that cuts across many formulation pages.
How to read an Evidence Lens
The lens is a fast orientation plate, not a literature review.
Read the four fields in order. Research Confidence tells you how settled the human trial file feels for the studied question. Studied As tells you what the literature actually named. Commonness tells you how often the name appears in real life, which is not the same as proof. Safety Note flags formulation-class concerns worth raising in counseling.
A lower Research Confidence score usually reflects a limited, inconsistent, or narrowly studied evidence base. It should not be read as proof that a therapy is ineffective.
What this guide deliberately does not do
- Rank products or tell you what to buy
- Replace a clinician, pharmacist, or obstetric review
- Quote trial doses as personal prescribing advice
- Collapse Ayurvedic, Unani, and diaspora kitchen speech into one undifferentiated "traditional" bucket
- Promise that familiarity, prescribing frequency, or marketing reach equals evidence certainty
Questions worth asking with any entry
The useful first question is usually "Which layer is this name?"
- Which layer is this name: ingredient, formulation, or product pattern?
- What exact product, brand, or recipe is on the label?
- What was this started for, and what else is already in the regimen?
- Does the patient mean kitchen use, OTC self-care, or practitioner prescribing?
- What monitoring or follow-up would make a trial-of-one safer if they continue anyway?
Uncertainty and limits
Entries orient at a point in time. They do not settle every clinical decision.
Entries summarize published human research and common filing mistakes. Evidence quality varies widely. Prototype pages may be revised as new trials appear. Use the sources section to explore the underlying evidence. When stakes are high, clinical workup comes before supplement reassurance.
Sources
Editorial framework drawn from docs/traditional-therapy-reference-continuity.md and docs/investigations/traditional-therapy-entity-universe-memo.md. Evidence blocks last reviewed: July 2026.