4.7 Review

Quality Markers of Traditional Chinese Medicine: Concept, Progress, and Perspective

期刊

ENGINEERING
卷 5, 期 5, 页码 888-894

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.eng.2019.01.015

关键词

Traditional Chinese medicine; Quality marker; Quality control

资金

  1. National Key Research and Development Program of China [2016YFE0121400]
  2. National Natural Science Foundation of China [81430096]
  3. Program for Changjiang Scholars and Innovative Research Team in University [IRT_14R41]
  4. Macau Science and Technology Development Fund, Macau SAR [006/2015/AMJ]
  5. Tianjin Natural Science Foundation [15JCYBJC29500]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

As the most important complementary medication against a variety of diseases, traditional Chinese medicines (TCMs) have been extensively applied over thousands of years. Current quality control of herbal medicines, however, is in great dispute. Unlike chemical drugs, which have clear and validated quality standards, the content of only one (or a few) compounds of many herbs and preparations is currently assessed as an indicator of quality, even though the assessed compound(s) is neither closely associated with the efficacy nor representative of the medicine as a whole. Based on the clinical use, compatibility of multiple component prescriptions, and manufacturing process of TCM, the new concept of a TCM quality marker that was proposed in previous work is discussed further here. In addition, practical technological approaches are described for the qualitative analysis and quantification of TCMs including herbs, processed products, and preparations, which lead to the discovery and identification of specific chemicals as quality markers and new quality control patterns. The progress that has been made in TCM quality control is also addressed. This work provides useful information for the quality control of herbal medicines in the future. (C) 2019 THE AUTHORS. Published by Elsevier LTD on behalf of Chinese Academy of Engineering and Higher Education Press Limited Company.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据