Professor Jianping Liu is a leading expert in the scientific evaluation of Traditional Chinese Medicine and evidence-based integrative health. As Director of the Centre for Evidence-Based Chinese Medicine at Beijing University of Chinese Medicine, he bridges traditional knowledge with modern clinical research. He has authored hundreds of publications, contributed extensively to Cochrane reviews, and advised global health organizations, including the World Health Organization. Professor Liu is widely recognized for advancing rigorous, internationally relevant evidence to guide the responsible integration of traditional medicine into contemporary health systems. He recently sat down with colleagues from the Cochrane Complementary Medicine team to talk about his experiences.

Cochrane Complementary Medicine (CAM): Could you tell us a bit about your background and training, and what led to your involvement in complementary medicine?

Jianping Liu (JL): Sure. I was trained as a Western medical doctor, but in China, medical universities also include courses in traditional Chinese medicine (TCM). Our curriculum had about 180 hours devoted to TCM, so I learned the basics during my training.

I earned my medical degree and later completed both a master’s and a PhD in infectious diseases. I then worked as a physician in a hospital for about three years, from the 1980s into the early 1990s. At that time, even in Western medicine hospitals, Chinese herbal medicine was used quite often in daily practice. I became curious about how these medicines worked and what their role was in treating different conditions.

I started reading the literature and became interested in how to evaluate it properly. In 1999, I received a scholarship from the Australasian Cochrane Centre to study evidence-based medicine and systematic reviews. At that time, the center was led by Chris Silagy, with Sally Green and Steve McDonough also on the team.

After that training, I returned to China and began conducting systematic reviews. My first Cochrane Review focused on Chinese medicine for chronic hepatitis B, and later, hepatitis C—diseases related to my background in infectious diseases.

I then worked with the Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group in Denmark, led by Christian Gluud, and later spent three years at the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, collaborating with the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group. So, I’ve been involved with Cochrane for many years.

Along the way, I met Susan Wieland, and because of my interest in Chinese and complementary medicine, I became an advisor for the Cochrane Complementary Medicine Field when Brian Berman was the director. I continue to work in the area of Chinese and integrative medicine, both in research and education.

CAM: Given your background in both traditional Chinese medicine and Cochrane’s evidence-based methods, what has your experience been working with complementary medicine in the context of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews? What are some of the strengths and challenges?

JL: The Cochrane Collaboration focuses on producing high-quality evidence, especially from randomized controlled trials with a low risk of bias. That’s important—but in traditional medicine, we face specific challenges.

One major issue is funding. Pharmaceutical companies rarely support studies in this field, so most trials are small and often lack strong methodological quality. When we do Cochrane Reviews of Chinese medicine, many end with the same conclusion: more rigorous, large-scale studies are needed.

Another challenge is that Chinese medicine has been practiced for thousands of years and is deeply rooted in cultural beliefs and philosophy. In China, Western medicine and Chinese medicine exist as two legal, parallel systems. Many people naturally choose Chinese medicine because they trust it. So, even without randomized trials, its use continues widely in daily practice.

CAM: Evidence is only useful if it’s accessed, understood, and used appropriately. As a Cochrane Field, the Complementary Medicine Field is meant to serve as a bridge between Cochrane and the broader community. How do you think evidence on complementary medicine is being accessed and used by policymakers, clinicians, and the public?

JL: There are two main areas to consider: decision-making and guideline development. Often, the process begins with clinicians seeking evidence to guide practice. So, identifying and prioritizing areas where there is a high need for evidence is very important.

In China, there are about 140 journals focused on traditional Chinese medicine, most published in Chinese. A lot of work has been done to translate information about randomized trials from these journals into English and share it with the Cochrane Complementary Medicine Field. From there, the information is added to the Cochrane CENTRAL database. This effort has made evidence more widely available. It would be even more valuable if there were a global platform—perhaps coordinated through the WHO—to connect researchers and practitioners internationally.

CAM: We’ve covered quite a bit already. Are there other points you’d like to raise about evidence and complementary medicine?

JL: Yes. The terminology is evolving. We’re moving away from older terms like “complementary” and “alternative.” In China, Western medicine, integrative medicine, and traditional Chinese medicine are practised as three parallel healthcare systems. In contrast, in many other countries, Western medicine is dominant and others are seen as supplementary.

Globally, about 80% of people—especially in rural or minority populations—rely primarily on traditional medicine. So, we should encourage the concept and practice of integrative medicine, which combines the strengths of both Western and traditional approaches to improve patient outcomes and experiences.

CAM: Finally, what do you see as the future of evidence in complementary medicine? What role should Cochrane and the Cochrane Complementary Medicine Field play?

JL: Cochrane should take a broader, global perspective that goes beyond Western-centric views. Evidence gathering should focus on informing decision-making in different healthcare systems, not just on academic rigor for its own sake.

Cochrane should also place more emphasis on health promotion and preventive care—not only on treatment outcomes. Integrating diverse types of evidence and perspectives will make Cochrane’s work more relevant to global health needs.