Alpha 2.0
Login Register
» Articles » PMID: 39792346

Similar but Different Three Major Traditional Medicines in East Asia: A Bibliometric Analysis

Overview
Journal Chin J Integr Med
Date 2025 Jan 10
PMID 39792346
Authors
Chan-Young Kwon
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Objective: Traditional medicine (TM) has played a key role in the health care system of East Asian countries, including China, Japan and South Korea. This bibliometric study analyzes the recent research status of these three TMs, including traditional Chinese medicine (TCM), traditional Korean medicine (TKM), and Kampo medicine (KM).

Methods: Research topics of studies published for recent 10 years (2014 to 2023), through a search on MEDLINE via PubMed, was analyzed. Medical Subject Headings were used to distinguish between the three TMs researches. Bibliographic information was analyzed through VOSViewer version. Total 10,151 documents were included: TCM studies (n=9,630); TKM studies (n=256); and KM studies (n=295).

Results: Comparing the three co-occurrence analysis maps, TCM studies generally overwhelm the quantitative scale of TKM and KM studies. In the trend of the latest research of TCM, not only corona virus disease 2019 (COVID-19), but also clinical research topics such as gastrointestinal microbiome and diabetes mellitus have emerged, with in silico research approaches being actively applied. In the case of TKM, obesity and cooperative treatment with Western medicine are gaining attention. In KM, COVID-19 and Scutellaria baicalensis were recent research focuses. Unique features that distinguished from the other two TM research trends included 'gut microbiota', 'diabetes mellitus', 'clinical trials', 'disease models', and 'quality control' in the TCM map; 'prospective studies', 'cell line, tumor', and 'panax' in the TKM map; and 'aged, 80 and over', 'retrospective studies', 'glycyrrhiza', 'panax', and 'paeonia' in the KM map. Also, some quantitative and qualitative differences were found in author co-operation maps in each TM.

Conclusions: This analysis revealed that there were clear quantitative and qualitative differences among TCM, TKM, and KM. Although these medicines have a common root, they may have become distinct due to factors such as the size of research funds, cultural differences, and the medical licensing system.

References
1.
Park H, Lee H, Shin B, Liu J, Shang Q, Yamashita H . Traditional medicine in china, Korea, and Japan: a brief introduction and comparison. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2012; 2012:429103. PMC: 3486438. DOI: 10.1155/2012/429103. View
2.
Shim J . Three plural medical systems in East Asia: interpenetrative pluralism in China, exclusionary pluralism in Korea and subjugatory pluralism in Japan. Health Policy Plan. 2018; 33(3):401-410. DOI: 10.1093/heapol/czy001. View
3.
Kim D, Shih C, Cheng H, Kwon S, Kim H, Lim B . A comparative study of the traditional medicine systems of South Korea and Taiwan: Focus on administration, education and license. Integr Med Res. 2021; 10(3):100685. PMC: 7903058. DOI: 10.1016/j.imr.2020.100685. View
4.
Zhang K, Tang Q . The dilemma and hope of Traditional Chinese Medicine practitioners in China. Integr Med Res. 2020; 9(2):100411. PMC: 7193313. DOI: 10.1016/j.imr.2020.100411. View
5.
He P, Zhu D, Man X, Bai Q, Huang L, Shi X . Strengthening of Traditional Chinese Medicine in the Health System Reform: Effect on Health Outcomes and Financial Protection. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2022; 2022:7226674. PMC: 8791714. DOI: 10.1155/2022/7226674. View