Dr. Myeong Soo Lee, PhD, is a principal researcher at the Korea Institute of Oriental Medicine (KIOM) and a global leader in evidence-based complementary and integrative medicine. With a foundation in physics, he earned his BSc and MSc from Pusan National University before transitioning into medical research, completing a PhD in Oriental Medicine at Wonkwang University. He further refined his expertise in the UK, training in systematic review methodology at Peninsula Medical School. Over his career, Dr. Lee has published hundreds of peer-reviewed articles, served on numerous journal editorial boards, and helped develop clinical practice guidelines for traditional medicine. He also holds academic affiliations in Europe and Asia and plays an active role in international organizations like the Guidelines International Network and Cochrane, working to bridge traditional healing practices and rigorous scientific evidence. He recently sat down with colleagues from the Cochrane Complementary Medicine team to talk about his experiences.

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

Myeong Soo Lee (MSL): My bachelor’s and master’s degrees are in physics. After completing my master’s degree, I developed severe fatigue—something like chronic fatigue syndrome. I looked for therapies to help my symptoms and found a small qigong training center at my university. After a month of practice, my symptoms improved significantly. That experience got me deeply interested in qigong, and I continued training for about 15 years. I stopped around 15 years ago, just before I returned to Korea.
About a year later, I received an offer from researchers at Wonkwang University in Korea to join a team studying the evidence behind qigong therapy. At the same time, I worked part-time at Jeonbuk University, where I learned biochemical techniques to measure neurohormones. I used these methods to study hormonal changes before and after qigong training.

After a year, I joined the Department of Microbiology and Immunology at Wonkwang University’s School of Medicine, where I worked as a researcher for 10 years. My focus was on the psychoneuroimmunological effects of qigong—how it influences the mind, nervous system, and immune system. Although my background was in physics, I learned how to study the effects of qigong in humans, which was challenging. In physics, results are clear—one plus one equals two—but human studies are much more complex. That was a big learning curve for me.

CAM: That leads to the next question—what has your experience been with gathering evidence for complementary medicine?

MSL: After earning my PhD, I went to the UK to learn about systematic reviews in complementary medicine—how to assess the strength and limitations of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). In recent years, large studies have come from China, especially on acupuncture, and these have helped strengthen the evidence base. Some have even been published in top journals like JAMA and the Annals of Internal Medicine.

However, complementary and traditional medicine often involve complex, multi-part interventions, which makes it difficult to isolate the effect of one specific treatment. In RCTs, we usually test a single intervention, which can miss the combined or “synergistic” effects seen in real practice.

Another limitation is the use of placebos. Policymakers and Western medical professionals often expect placebo-controlled studies, but this isn’t always feasible for therapies like acupuncture, Tuina, or yoga. It’s hard to create a true placebo in those cases, which is an inherent challenge.

CAM: Are there other ways of gathering or identifying valuable evidence?

MSL: In Korea, we often use herbal decoctions in traditional medicine, but it’s difficult to test them through standard RCTs because they must meet FDA-style requirements. Recently, the Korean Medical Doctor Association began working with the Ministry of Health on a new approach—collecting real-world evidence from clinical practice for specific herbal treatments.

After a one-year pilot, the results were very positive. For certain conditions, the Ministry of Health accepted the evidence and added those decoctions to the national insurance system, allowing patients to benefit. The same process happened earlier for Tuina manipulation, which is similar to chiropractic care. It wasn’t originally covered by insurance, but after three years of study, it was approved. Now patients can receive up to 20 sessions under national insurance. These examples show how research and policy collaboration can make complementary medicine more accessible.

CAM: How well is evidence like this accessed and used by policymakers and others who could benefit from it?

MSL: We recently completed a WHO project reviewing the quality of systematic reviews of the recent five years in complementary medicine. Unfortunately, most were of low quality. As an editor for Integrative Medicine Research, I see the same issue—many submitted reviews lack rigor. About 10 years ago, systematic reviews were done mainly by experienced researchers and were of high quality. Now, because they’re popular and easier to publish, many are done quickly and without proper methods.
Cochrane Reviews are an exception—they take much longer and follow strict guidelines, resulting in more reliable evidence.

CAM: How does that information reach policymakers or clinicians?

MSL: Many Asian countries, including Korea and China, are now developing evidence-based clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) using systematic reviews. In Korea, we’ve been developing CPGs for over 10 years and have an online clearinghouse where they are available to everyone. However, most are only in Korean, with English summaries, which limits international access.
These guidelines are a strong way to share evidence with clinicians and policymakers, though some recommendations still rely on expert consensus rather than data. We also translate Cochrane’s Plain Language Summaries into Korean, which helps share reliable information with the public.

CAM: What could organizations like Cochrane or the research community do to improve access to high-quality evidence?

MSL: We already do some education and distribute information leaflets for clinicians and patients, but reaching the general public is still difficult. More outreach—such as advertising or publishing materials in plain language—would help.

CAM: Looking ahead, what do you think is most important for the future of evidence in complementary medicine?

MSL: We need a trustworthy, open-access database that gathers reliable evidence from across the Internet and makes it freely available. With proper funding and resources, this could greatly support research and public understanding.

CAM: Are there other issues you think are important to mention?

MSL: Since COVID-19, funding for complementary medicine has declined. Cochrane Reviews also take a long time to complete, so we need more trained experts and better education for the next generation of researchers. Building that next generation of skilled reviewers and scientists will be essential for the future of complementary medicine and clinical evidence.