Scholarlink

Background <p>Tibetan medicine has historically engaged in extensive exchanges with the three traditional medicines. These interactions peaked during the Tubo Dynasty (7th-9th century AD). Numerous scholars have acknowledged the close medical and cultural exchanges between Tibetan medicine and the three traditional medicines, but studies offering quantitative and objective comparative results are lacking.</p> Aim <p>This study quantitatively analyzes the above problems from the perspective of medicinal materials and discusses the general use of medicinal materials in Tibetan medicine, the three traditional medical systems, and the exchange of co-used medicinal materials among them. It provides a preliminary analysis of the source composition of Tibetan medicinal materials.</p> Methods <p>Firstly, Data mining: Data were extracted from 20 classical texts on Tibetan medicine, traditional Chinese medicine, Ayurveda and Arabic medicine dating from the 6th century AD to the 10th century AD. Information on medical properties, namely, medicinal taste, distribution, medicinal parts, efficacy, therapeutic use, and usage and dosage of medicinal materials, were systematically compiled to establish the datasets. Secondly, Analysis and comparison: Similarities and differences among medicinal materials used in Tibetan medicine, traditional Chinese medicine, Ayurveda, and Arabic medicine between the 6th and 10th centuries AD were analyzed using the Mann-Whitney test (a non-parametric method) and an intuitive comparison method.</p> Results <p>The total numbers of medicinal materials in Tibetan medicine, traditional Chinese medicine, Ayurveda, and Arabic medicine were 1229, 2184, 760, and 511, respectively. The overall comparison showed that Tibetan medicine, traditional Chinese Medicine, Ayurveda, and Arabic medicine all used plants as the main source of medicinal materials, accounting for 81.2%, 84.5%, 87.3%, and 79.8%, respectively. There were significant differences in medicinal parts, therapeutic uses, and medicinal taste among them (<i>p</i> &lt; 0.05). In terms of medicinal parts, traditional Chinese medicine mostly used whole herbs and rhizomes, whereas Tibetan medicine, Ayurveda, and Arabic medicine were more inclined to use renewable fruits, seeds, and leaves. Regarding treatment, although the four traditional medicines were generally used to treat digestive diseases, traditional Chinese medicine was more commonly used to treat skin diseases, whereas Ayurveda and Arabic medicine were more commonly used to treat respiratory and urogenital diseases. The comparison of co-used medicinal materials showed that Tibetan medicine had 248 kinds of co-used medicinal materials with Traditional Chinese Medicine, 140 with Ayurveda, and 128 with Arabic medicine. These co-used medicinal materials exhibited similarities and differences in terms of medicinal parts, therapeutic applications, and dose specifications.</p> Conclusions <p>This study found differences and similarities in the use of medicinal materials across the four traditional medicines. Significant differences in medicinal parts, therapeutic uses, and dosage forms were found, which were attributed to the combined influence of multiple factors, such as medical theory and cultural customs. In addition, a partial overlap was found between the medicinal materials used in Tibetan medicine and the three medical systems. This finding indicates that although grounded in locally available resources, Tibetan medicine has incorporated medicinal material information from traditional Chinese medicine (20.18%), Ayurveda (11.19%), and Arabic medicine (10.41%). Overall, these findings provide an empirical basis for understanding similarities and differences between Tibetan medicine and the three major medical systems and offer a novel perspective for comparative research in traditional medicine.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Quantitative comparison of similarities and differences in medicinal materials used by Tibetan medicine and the three traditional medicines (6th−10th Century AD)

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年7月10日

查看全文
  • Jingwen Zhang,
  • Ran Li,
  • Zhuoma Sanzhi,
  • Lili Xu,
  • Yiye Li,
  • Ting Zhang,
  • Zhongyuan Wang,
  • Yunhui Shen,
  • Yingxia Tang,
  • Haowen Li,
  • Min Wang,
  • Yushuang Shou,
  • Liping Luo,
  • Yinglian Song,
  • Wanyue Chen,
  • Zhuoma Garang,
  • Rizhun Luo,
  • Tingting Kuang,
  • Xinyang Song,
  • Yongzhong Zeweng,
  • Zhang Wang

摘要

Background

Tibetan medicine has historically engaged in extensive exchanges with the three traditional medicines. These interactions peaked during the Tubo Dynasty (7th-9th century AD). Numerous scholars have acknowledged the close medical and cultural exchanges between Tibetan medicine and the three traditional medicines, but studies offering quantitative and objective comparative results are lacking.

Aim

This study quantitatively analyzes the above problems from the perspective of medicinal materials and discusses the general use of medicinal materials in Tibetan medicine, the three traditional medical systems, and the exchange of co-used medicinal materials among them. It provides a preliminary analysis of the source composition of Tibetan medicinal materials.

Methods

Firstly, Data mining: Data were extracted from 20 classical texts on Tibetan medicine, traditional Chinese medicine, Ayurveda and Arabic medicine dating from the 6th century AD to the 10th century AD. Information on medical properties, namely, medicinal taste, distribution, medicinal parts, efficacy, therapeutic use, and usage and dosage of medicinal materials, were systematically compiled to establish the datasets. Secondly, Analysis and comparison: Similarities and differences among medicinal materials used in Tibetan medicine, traditional Chinese medicine, Ayurveda, and Arabic medicine between the 6th and 10th centuries AD were analyzed using the Mann-Whitney test (a non-parametric method) and an intuitive comparison method.

Results

The total numbers of medicinal materials in Tibetan medicine, traditional Chinese medicine, Ayurveda, and Arabic medicine were 1229, 2184, 760, and 511, respectively. The overall comparison showed that Tibetan medicine, traditional Chinese Medicine, Ayurveda, and Arabic medicine all used plants as the main source of medicinal materials, accounting for 81.2%, 84.5%, 87.3%, and 79.8%, respectively. There were significant differences in medicinal parts, therapeutic uses, and medicinal taste among them (p < 0.05). In terms of medicinal parts, traditional Chinese medicine mostly used whole herbs and rhizomes, whereas Tibetan medicine, Ayurveda, and Arabic medicine were more inclined to use renewable fruits, seeds, and leaves. Regarding treatment, although the four traditional medicines were generally used to treat digestive diseases, traditional Chinese medicine was more commonly used to treat skin diseases, whereas Ayurveda and Arabic medicine were more commonly used to treat respiratory and urogenital diseases. The comparison of co-used medicinal materials showed that Tibetan medicine had 248 kinds of co-used medicinal materials with Traditional Chinese Medicine, 140 with Ayurveda, and 128 with Arabic medicine. These co-used medicinal materials exhibited similarities and differences in terms of medicinal parts, therapeutic applications, and dose specifications.

Conclusions

This study found differences and similarities in the use of medicinal materials across the four traditional medicines. Significant differences in medicinal parts, therapeutic uses, and dosage forms were found, which were attributed to the combined influence of multiple factors, such as medical theory and cultural customs. In addition, a partial overlap was found between the medicinal materials used in Tibetan medicine and the three medical systems. This finding indicates that although grounded in locally available resources, Tibetan medicine has incorporated medicinal material information from traditional Chinese medicine (20.18%), Ayurveda (11.19%), and Arabic medicine (10.41%). Overall, these findings provide an empirical basis for understanding similarities and differences between Tibetan medicine and the three major medical systems and offer a novel perspective for comparative research in traditional medicine.