Comparative Studies of Medicinal Herbs listed in Pharmacopoeia in the East Asia

东亚药典所收药草的比较研究

• 批准号: 13672229
• 负责人: IDA Yoshiteru
• 金额: $ 2.11万
• 依托单位: Showa University
• 依托单位国家: 日本
• 项目类别: Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (C)
• 财政年份: 2001
• 资助国家: 日本
• 起止时间: 2001 至 2002
• 项目状态: 已结题
• 来源: https://kaken.nii.ac.jp/grant/KAKENHI-PROJECT-13672229/
• 关键词: East Asia region; Pharmacopoeia; herbal medicine; Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM); database; Japan-China-Korea; Kampo Medicine; Comparative Studies; 生薬; 国際情報交換; データベース; 日本:中国:韓国:ベトナム

1) Object: Traditional Chinese Medicine has been spread widely in East Asia region such as Japan and Korea, and still used there at present. But some of herbal medicines have been changed in their names, their origins, and/or clinical purposes, and/or replaced with another origin by different conditions in each country as its climate, social traits, culture, kind of diseases, and anthropological factors. And there are complicated circumstances behind the matter of herbal medicines among these nations. This project was designed to specify names of medicinal herbs of each country based on its official book and to find out what the original of its official book was, and intend to harmonize the complicated circumstances.2) Methods: In order to investigate this matter systematically, a database was built for the herbal medicines listed in the official books ; Japan Pharmacopoeia 14th revision and Japan Herbal Medicine Codex (190 herbs), Pharmacopoeia of the People's Republic of China (504 h … More erbs), and The Korea Pharmacopoeia (136 herbs). The data were compared and analyzed on the names, Chinese characters, the origins, the parts used as medicine, and their processing.3) Results: Comparing terms of medicinal herbs, we classified the factors which brought the differences among nations into several categories as follows ; (A-l) Same/similar name, same origin, (A-2) Same name, different origin, (A-3) Different name, same origin, (A-4) Different name but the usage is same, different origin, (A-5) complicated nomenclature, and (A-6) others. Additionally, there were some differences in the portions (the whole bodies, fruits, leaves, skins, roots, etc.), and their processing (dried, steam dried, etc.). Category A-5 has 24 groups.4) Conclusion: The current condition should be grasped through the combination of the categories as above. Such confusion may prevent progress in the evaluation of traditional Chinese medicine including Kampo medicine. In order to achieve our goal, to promote intercommunication for better understanding among researchers, standardization and/or harmonization of terminology is required. Less

1)研究对象：中医药在日本、韩国等东亚地区广泛传播，目前仍在使用。但一些草药的名称、来源和/或临床用途已被改变，和/或被不同来源的草药取代，被每个国家的气候、社会特征、文化、疾病种类和人类学因素等不同条件所取代。这些国家在草药问题的背后存在着复杂的情况。2)方法：以《日本药典》第14版和《中华人民共和国中国药典》(504h…)收录的药材为研究对象，建立《中国药典》第14版和《中华人民共和国中国药典》(504h更多ERBS)和《韩国药典》(136种草药)。结果：通过对药材术语的比较，将造成民族差异的因素归纳为：(A-L)同名同源，(A-2)同名异源，(A-3)异名同源，(A-4)异名同源，(A-5)命名复杂，(A-6)其他。此外，在部分(全身、果实、叶、皮、根等)及其加工(干燥、蒸汽干燥等)方面也存在一些差异。A-5类有24组。4)结论：目前的情况应通过上述类别的组合来把握。这种混乱可能会阻碍包括Kampo药物在内的传统中医药的评价工作取得进展。为了实现我们的目标，为了促进研究人员之间的相互交流，以便更好地理解，需要对术语进行标准化和/或统一。较少