Evidence-Based Study to Compare Daodi Traditional Chinese Medicinal Material and Non-Daodi Traditional Chinese Medicinal Material
Table 1
Basic information of the included studies.
Category
Characteristic
Number (%) of studies,
Year
1990–1999
3 (2.8%)
2000–2009
56 (52.3%)
2010–2014.7
48 (44.9%)
Ref type
Journal thesis
67 (62.6%)
Academic degree
32 (29.9%)
Conference paper
5 (4.7%)
Conference recording
3 (2.8%)
Title
Comparison of Daodi and non-Daodi Medicinal Materials
21 (19.6%)
Comparison of Different Medicinal Materials
11 (10.3%)
Others
75 (70.1%)
Author address
China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences
10 (9.3%)
China Pharmaceutical University
8 (7.5%)
Henan University of Chinese Medicine
8 (7.5%)
Beijing University of Chinese Medicine
7 (6.5%)
Chengdu University of TCM
7 (6.5%)
Hubei University of Traditional Chinese Medicine
6 (5.6%)
Peking University
5 (4.7%)
Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences
4 (3.7%)
Tsinghua University
4 (3.7%)
Others
48 (44.9%)
Funding source
Natural Science Foundation of China
20 (18.7%)
National Basic Research Program of China
7 (6.5%)
National Administration of Traditional Chinese Medicine Fund Projects
5 (4.7%)
Support fund not indicated
44 (41.1%)
Others
31 (29.0%)
Competing interests
Not mentioned
103 (96.3%)
Journal (n = 67)
China Journal of Chinese Materia Medica
16 (23.9%)
Chinese Pharmaceutical Journal
4 (6.0%)
Journal of Chinese Medicinal Materials
4 (6.0%)
Lishizhen Medicine and Materia Medica Research
3 (4.5%)
Others
40 (59.7%)
authors were affiliated with different research institutions, and the first affiliated institution was used; academic degree dissertations were categorized according to the university or college.
