Open Access


Read more
image01

Online Manuscript Submission


Read more
image01

Submitted Manuscript Trail


Read more
image01

Online Payment


Read more
image01

Online Subscription


Read more
image01

Email Alert



Read more
image01

Original Research Article | OPEN ACCESS

Chinese herbal medicines – Comparison of doses prescribed in clinical practice and those in China pharmacopeia

Sheng-Lou Ni1, Chuan-Rong Chen1, Yan-Ling Fu2 , Lin Zhang1, Jia Song1

1School of Basic Medical Sciences; 2School of Continuing Education, Beijing University of Chinese Medicine, No. 11 Bei San Huan Dong Lu, Beijing 100029, China.

For correspondence:-  Yan-Ling Fu   Email: fuyanlingbucm@126.com   Tel:+861064286307

Received: 20 Sepember 2014        Revised: 13 December 2014        Published: 30 January 2015

Citation: Ni S, Chen C, Fu Y, Zhang L, Song J. Chinese herbal medicines – Comparison of doses prescribed in clinical practice and those in China pharmacopeia. Trop J Pharm Res 2015; 14(1):171-177 doi: 10.4314/tjpr.v14i1.24

© 2015 The authors.
This is an Open Access article that uses a funding model which does not charge readers or their institutions for access and distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0) and the Budapest Open Access Initiative (http://www.budapestopenaccessinitiative.org/read), which permit unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited..

Abstract

Purpose:To compare the optimum doses of frequently used Chinese herbal medicines in clinical practice with stipulated doses in China Pharmacopoeia 2010, and assess the factors influencing choice of dose.
Methods:A total of 303 practitioners of traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) from 50 comprehensive TCM hospitals were investigated using a multi-stage randomized questionnaire. The content of the questionnaire included doses of frequently-used Chinese herbs, cognition of current doses in clinical practice, and doctors’ (practitioners’) opinions on dose levels. The median of Chinese herbal medicines’ dose prescribed by the participants was compared with the upper limit value (ULV) of stipulated doses in China Pharmacopoeia by assigned rank test. The centralized tendency of dose selection by TCM doctors was expressed as mean ± standard deviation. The top three factors influencing selection of dose were obtained using inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Results:Among the selected Chinese herbs, the doses of 32 herbs exceeded ULV of the pharmacopoeia, accounting for 57.14 % (32/56). The top three factors influencing dose choice were variety and quality of the herbs, mode of preparation, and herbal combination. Furthermore, due to varying quality of the medicinal materials, method of preparation, and clinical experience, the doses among the 303 TCM doctors also varied considerably.
Conclusion:There is a significant difference between the doses of herbal medicines prescribed by TCM doctors and the doses stipulated in China Pharmacopoeia. In most cases, the former doses are higher.

Keywords: Chinese herbal medicines, China Pharmacopoeia, Dose selection, Multi-stage randomized questionnaire

Impact Factor
Thompson Reuters (ISI): 0.6 (2023)
H-5 index (Google Scholar): 49 (2023)

Article Tools

Share this article with



Article status: Free
Fulltext in PDF
Similar articles in Google
Similar article in this Journal:

Archives

2024; 23: 
1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6,   7,   8,   9,   10
2023; 22: 
1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6,   7,   8,   9,   10,   11,   12
2022; 21: 
1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6,   7,   8,   9,   10,   11,   12
2021; 20: 
1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6,   7,   8,   9,   10,   11,   12
2020; 19: 
1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6,   7,   8,   9,   10,   11,   12
2019; 18: 
1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6,   7,   8,   9,   10,   11,   12
2018; 17: 
1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6,   7,   8,   9,   10,   11,   12
2017; 16: 
1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6,   7,   8,   9,   10,   11,   12
2016; 15: 
1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6,   7,   8,   9,   10,   11,   12
2015; 14: 
1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6,   7,   8,   9,   10,   11,   12
2014; 13: 
1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6,   7,   8,   9,   10,   11,   12
2013; 12: 
1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6
2012; 11: 
1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6
2011; 10: 
1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6
2010; 9: 
1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6
2009; 8: 
1,   2,   3,   4,   5,   6
2008; 7: 
1,   2,   3,   4
2007; 6: 
1,   2,   3,   4
2006; 5: 
1,   2
2005; 4: 
1,   2
2004; 3: 
1
2003; 2: 
1,   2
2002; 1: 
1,   2

News Updates