↓ Skip to main content

Differences in the origin of philosophy between Chinese medicine and western medicine: Exploration of the holistic advantages of Chinese medicine

Overview of attention for article published in Chinese Journal of Integrative Medicine, August 2013
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
43 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
101 Mendeley
Title
Differences in the origin of philosophy between Chinese medicine and western medicine: Exploration of the holistic advantages of Chinese medicine
Published in
Chinese Journal of Integrative Medicine, August 2013
DOI 10.1007/s11655-013-1435-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Da-zhi Sun, Shao-dan Li, Yi Liu, Yin Zhang, Rong Mei, Ming-hui Yang

Abstract

To explore advantages of Chinese medicine (CM) by analyzing differences in the origin of philosophy for human health between CM and Western medicine (WM). Methodologically, a distinctive feature of CM is its systems theory, which is also the difference between CM and WM. Since the birth of CM, it has taken the human body as a whole from the key concepts of "qi, blood, yin-yang, viscera (Zang-Fu), and meridian and channel", rather than a single cell or a particular organ. WM evolves from the Western philosophic way of thinking and merely uses natural sciences as the foundation. The development of WM is based on human structures, or anatomy, and therefore, research of WM is also based on the way of thinking of decomposing the whole human body into several independent parts, which is the impetus of promoting the development of WM. The core of CM includes the holistic view and the dialectical view. Chinese herbal medicines contain various components and treat a disease from multiple targets and links. Therefore, Chinese herbal medicines treat a diseased state by regulating and mobilizing the whole body rather than just regulating a single factor, since the diseased state is not only a problem in a local part of the body but a local reflection of imbalance of the whole body.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 101 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 100 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 34 34%
Student > Master 11 11%
Researcher 7 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 4%
Other 2 2%
Other 6 6%
Unknown 37 37%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 29 29%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 6%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 3%
Other 13 13%
Unknown 35 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 20 June 2014.
All research outputs
#18,373,874
of 22,757,541 outputs
Outputs from Chinese Journal of Integrative Medicine
#399
of 674 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#148,925
of 199,329 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Chinese Journal of Integrative Medicine
#8
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,757,541 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 674 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.6. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 199,329 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.