Understanding of Research Bias in Herbal Medicine: A Comprehensive Review

Year : 2026 | Volume : 15 | Issue : 01 | Page : 31 35
    By

    Azizur Rahman,

  • Rushda Khatoon,

  • Humera Zaki,

  1. Lecturer, Department of Mahiyatul Amraz (Pathology), National Institute of Unani Medicine, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India
  2. PG Scholar, Department of Mahiyatul Amraz (Pathology), National Institute of Unani Medicine, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India
  3. PG Scholar, Department of Mahiyatul Amraz (Pathology), National Institute of Unani Medicine, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India

Abstract

Background: The communication and generation of knowledge are central to research. In herbal medicine, with its deep historical roots, research must be methodologically rigorous and unbiased to validate traditional knowledge in modern contexts. Bias, defined as any tendency preventing objective evaluation of a research question, compromises validity and reliability. Objective: To highlight types of research bias in herbal medicine and discuss strategies for minimization to ensure credible and applicable findings. Methods: A narrative review of literature was conducted to identify common forms of bias in herbal drug research and approaches for mitigation. Classical texts and modern scientific perspectives were synthesized to present a structured understanding of research bias in this domain. Results: Research bias in herbal medicine may arise during study design, participant selection, data collection, analysis, and publication. Key biases include design bias, selection/participant bias, measurement bias, analysis bias, publication bias, unconscious bias, and channeling bias. These can lead to misinterpretation of results and reduced applicability of findings. Minimization strategies include proper study design, randomization, rigorous data collection tools, triangulation, transparent analytical processes, respondent validation, and ethical oversight. Quantitative studies require robust sampling, follow-up, and randomization, whereas qualitative studies demand purposeful sampling refinement, avoidance of early closure, and methodological transparency. Conclusion: Bias is inherent in research designs, but it can be mitigated through ethical, methodological, and analytical safeguards. Recognizing and minimizing bias is essential for authenticating herbal drug research, preserving validity, and enabling evidence-based integration of traditional knowledge into modern healthcare

Keywords: Data collection, evidence-based practice, herbal medicine, research design, selection bias

[This article belongs to Research & Reviews : Journal of Herbal Science ]

How to cite this article:
Azizur Rahman, Rushda Khatoon, Humera Zaki. Understanding of Research Bias in Herbal Medicine: A Comprehensive Review. Research & Reviews : Journal of Herbal Science. 2026; 15(01):31-35.
How to cite this URL:
Azizur Rahman, Rushda Khatoon, Humera Zaki. Understanding of Research Bias in Herbal Medicine: A Comprehensive Review. Research & Reviews : Journal of Herbal Science. 2026; 15(01):31-35. Available from: https://journals.stmjournals.com/rrjohs/article=2026/view=240456


Browse Figures

References

  1. Simundic AM. Bias in research. Biochem Med (Zagreb). 2013;23(1):12–15.
  2. Pannucci CJ, Wilkins EG. Identifying and avoiding bias in research. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2010;126(2):619–625. doi: 10.1097/PRS.0b013e3181de24bc.
  3. Dictionary.com; http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/bias.
  4. Agabegi SS, Stern PJ. Bias in research. Am J Orthop (Belle Mead NJ). 2008;37(5):242–248.
  5. Smith J, Noble H. Bias in research. Evid Based Nurs. 2014;17(4):100–101. doi: 10.1136/eb-2014-101946.
  6. Alexander LK, Lopes B, Masterson KR, Yeatts KB. Selection bias. 2nd ed. USA: UNC Gillings School of Global Public Health; p. 1–2.
  7. Easterbrook PJ, Berlin JA, Gopalan R, et al. Publication bias in clinical research. Lancet. 1991;337:867–872.
  8. Petticrew M, Egan M, Thomson H, Hamilton V, et al. Publication bias in qualitative research: What becomes of qualitative research presented at conferences J Epidemiol Community Health. 2008 Jun;62(6):552–4. doi: 10.1136/jech.2006.059394.
  9. The Royal Society. Unconscious bias: A briefing Internet. 2015. Available from: https://
    royalsociety.org/~/media/policy/Publications/2015/unconscious-bias-briefing-2015.pdf.
  10. Lobo FS, Wagner S, Gross CR, et al. Addressing the issue of channelling bias in observational studies with propensity scores analysis. Res Social Adm Pharm. 2006 Mar;2(1):143–51. doi: 10.1016/j.sapharm.2005.12.001.
  11. Sica GT. Bias in research studies. Radiology. 2006;238:780–789.
  12. Morse JM, Barrett M, Mayan M, et al. Verification strategies for establishing reliability and validity in qualitative research. Int J Qual Methods. 2002;1:13–22.
  13. Francis JJ, Johnston M, Robertson C, et al. What is an adequate sample size? Operationalising data saturation for theory-based interview studies. Psychol Health. 2010;25(10):1229–1245. doi: 10.1080/08870440903194015.
Regular Issue Subscription Original Research
Volume 15
Issue 01
Received 22/12/2025
Accepted 03/01/2026
Published 05/01/2026
Publication Time 14 Days
36

Login


My IP

PlumX Metrics