Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32774446›Full record

ArticleChinese medicine2020

The comparison of extraction methods of ganjiang decoction based on fingerprint, quantitative analysis and pharmacodynamics.

Yanyan Wei, Ning Jiang, Tuo Liu, Chang Liu, Wen Xiao, Likeng Liang, Tongming Li, Yang Yu

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Chinese medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 15% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Yanyan Wei *School of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou, Guangdong 510006 China.
Ning Jiang *School of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou, Guangdong 510006 China.
Tuo LiuSchool of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou, Guangdong 510006 China.
Chang LiuSchool of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou, Guangdong 510006 China.
Wen XiaoSchool of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou, Guangdong 510006 China.
Likeng LiangThe Second Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou, University of Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou, Guangdong 510006 China.
Tongming LiSchool of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou, Guangdong 510006 China.
Yang YuSchool of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou, Guangdong 510006 China.
Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundUlcerative colitis (UC) is a chronic nonspecific inflammatory disease of the colon and rectum with unknown etiology, and its symptoms include bloody diarrhea, abdominal pain, and hematochezia. Traditional Chinese medicine compound has a good therapeutic, multi-target effect on UC. Ganjiang decoction (GD), which is a traditional classic prescription in China, contains Zingiberis Rhizoma, Angelicae Sinensis Radix, Coptidis Rhizoma, Phellodendri Chinensis Cortex, Sanguisorbae Radix, Granati Pericarpium, and Asini Corii Colla and could be used to treat symptoms of UC. This study aimed to conduct a preliminary study before GD colon-targeted preparation, to explore the relationship between extraction method and efficacy of GD.

methodsHigh-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) was used for the fingerprinting of five preparation methods of GD. HPLC and gas chromatography were used to quantitatively analyze the important chemical components of GD and compare their differences. Mice with UC induced by dextran sulphate sodium salt received the extracts from the five preparation methods of GD via gavage. Disease activity index (DAI) score, colonic length, relative weight of spleen, pathological analysis results, inflammatory factors, therapeutic effect of the five preparation methods of GD, and their relationship with extraction process were compared.

resultsCluster analysis revealed that the content of the components extracted by traditional extraction methods was significantly different from the other four methods. The third and fifth preparation methods extracted Coptidis Rhizoma and Phellodendri Chinensis Cortex with 50% ethanol to obtain more alkaloids. In the fourth and fifth methods, more volatile oils were detected by adding Zingiberis Rhizoma and Angelicae Sinensis Radix fine powder. According to DAI score, colonic length, relative weight of spleen, pathological analysis results, and inflammatory factors, the third method showed a good therapeutic effect, while the fifth method had the best therapeutic effect.

conclusionsThe results showed that the difference of the five extracts of GD in the efficacy of DSS-induced UC in mice was closely related to the extraction method. Our study improved the extraction process of GD and provided a foundation for the process of enteric-soluble preparations and a new idea for traditional Chinese medicine compound preparation.

Indexed as

FingerprintGanjiang decoctionPharmacodynamicsQuantitative analysis

Identifiers

PMID32774446
PMCPMC7409467
OpenAlexW3047546123

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.