4.4 Review

The effects of natural compounds on wound healing in Iranian traditional medicine: A comprehensive review

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.ctcp.2020.101275

关键词

Wound healing; Traditional medicine and pharmacologic actions

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The process of wound healing is complex and Iranian Traditional Medicine (ITM) offers a rich resource of traditional knowledge, including a variety of natural compounds such as herbs, animal products, and minerals which have been studied and verified in the context of wound remedies. The review provides insights into both ITM and its vast experience in wound healing processes.
Wounds are physical and anatomical disruption in healthy skin and represent an important healthcare concern around the world. Wound healing is a complex and dynamic cascade of cellular and molecular interactions which include four main phases: hemostasis, inflammatory, proliferative, and remodeling. Therefore, some pharmacological activities such as anti-inflammatory, antioxidant, and antimicrobial activities can play a key role in the process of wound healing. Iranian Traditional Medicine (ITM) has a rich background of practice and a wealth of ancient medicine scientists from the Old Persian days until today. This paper presents and characterizes pure data from original references of ITM about wound remedies and verifies their function by reviewing articles from three databases (Google Scholar, PubMed, and Scopus), which could be an interesting and comprehensive resource for future researchers interested in traditional medicine (TM) generally and in ITM in particular. Selected natural compounds from the references were divided into 5 groups, including herbs, herbal products, animal products, minerals, and animals. In total, 23 natural compounds with regard to the current state of knowledge and ITM were introduced and verified. The present review will provide better insights into ITM and its extensive experience in topics such as wound healing.

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

4.4
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