Table of Contents Author Guidelines Submit a Manuscript
Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine
Volume 2018, Article ID 6763130, 12 pages
https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/6763130
Review Article

Evidence-Based Study to Compare Daodi Traditional Chinese Medicinal Material and Non-Daodi Traditional Chinese Medicinal Material

1Beijing University of Chinese Medicine, Beijing 100700, China
2State Key Laboratory Breeding Base of Dao-Di Herbs, China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences, Beijing 100700, China
3The First Clinical Medical College of Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, China
4Institute of Basic Research in Clinical Medicine, China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences, Beijing 100700, China
5Evidence-Based Medicine Center, School of Basic Medical Sciences, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, China
6Department of Tuina and Pain Management, Dongzhimen Hospital, Beijing University of Chinese Medicine, Beijing 100700, China

Correspondence should be addressed to Liyun He; moc.361@9963yleh

Received 23 August 2017; Accepted 19 November 2017; Published 22 January 2018

Academic Editor: Rentian Wu

Copyright © 2018 Xingyue Yang et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Background. Daodi medicinal material is widely used in Chinese herb medication. However, there is a lack of systematic methodology for identifying characteristics associated with good quality and reliable efficacy of Daodi med-material. Purpose. The purpose of this study is to provide some evidence to further substantiate the use of Daodi medicinal materials. Methods. Seven relevant databases were searched before July 2014. Two evaluators were responsible for screening and categorizing the results. The data was analyzed with Microsoft Excel 2007 and SPSS 21.0 statistical software. Results. Overall, 107 articles were systematically analyzed. Of these studies, 55.1% (59/107) focused on the methodology to assess Daodi med-material, and 38.3% (41/107) were interested in med-material ingredients, soil physical and chemical properties, and the geological background system (GBS). Only 6.5% (7/107) of studies were mainly conducted as clinical trials and animal experiments. Conclusion. Comparisons between Daodi and non-Daodi materials have been studied mainly in terms of the ingredients or composition of medical materials, soil physics and chemistry, and the GBS, and some identifying methodologies have been created to identify Daodi attributes. Until now, there is still no consensus of comparison criteria between Daodi and non-Daodi medicinal material. Only a few studies were conducted through animal experiments and clinical trials to determine Daodi superiority.