OBJECTIVE:To distinguish between the traditional science of Chinese materia medica and the pharmacognosy and discuss the developmental direction of the traditional Chinese medicine.METHODS:The differences between the traditional science of Chinese materia medica and the pharmacognosy in rationale,research contents,medical treatment principles and identification of the quality of the traditional Chinese medicine were compared to clarify that the pharmacognosy and traditional science of Chinese materia medica are completely different concepts.RESULTS:At present,the science of Chinese materia medica is constrained by the theory of pharmacognosy,and the traditional science of Chinese materia medica is tended to be gradually replaced by the western-medicine-theory-based pharmacognosy.CONCLUSION:It is necessary to reconsider and discuss the developmental direction of the traditional Chinese medicine.Modern research on Chinese medicine should follow the natural laws of the Chinese medicine itself rather than following the development mode of the western medicines.

OBJECTIVE:To promote the rational use of Chinese patent drugs(CPD).METHODS:The efficacy of several groups of CPD which share the similar formulation were compared and the components in each formulation were further analyzed in detail.RESULTS:The origins and pathogenesis of diseases treated with different CPD of the similar formulation varied,so did their indications.CONCLUSION:Only by following the principle of"Syndrome Differentiation Treatment"can the efficacy of CPD be maximized.

OBJECTIVE:To explore ways to resolve the quality problems of Chinese herbal slice so as to provide reference for producers,processors and users.METHODS:The records of check and accept prepared slice into storeroom in our hospital during 2008 were summed up and sorted out.The number of total batches,the number and proportion of unqualified batches were calculated to analyze the causes of unqualified slice after checking.RESULTS:In 2008 there were 4 519 batches of herbal slice while 94 batches were unqualified and accounted for 2.1% in total.53 batches were refused because of their quality problem,accounting for 56.4% of unqualified batches.CONCLUSION:It is urgent to improve the quality of prepared slice and standardize the processing of herbal slice.

Objective:To externally validated the intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) shockⅡ score and CardShock score for predicting in-hospital mortality in patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock (AMI-CS) and compared them with the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health EvaluationⅡ (APACHEⅡ) score.Methods:According to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, patients admitted to the cardiac care center (CCU) of our center from December 2010 to May 2019 were enrolled in this study. Patients’ baseline characteristics, in-hospital interventions, and outcomes were collected. The APACHEⅡ score was calculated during hospitalization by clinicians and collected by researchers. Two researchers independently calculated the IABP-ShockⅡ score and CardShock score; any disagreement was discussed with the third researcher. The performance of risk scores was evaluated by discrimination and calibration. The discriminative ability of risk scores was evaluated using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and compared by the Delong method. The calibration of these risk scores was examined by the Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test. The calibration plot was also built.Results:A total of 150 patients enrolled in our study, and the in-hospital mortality was 60%. According to the IABP-ShockⅡ score, patients scored as low risk (0-2), moderate risk (3-4), and high risk (5-9) had in-hospital mortality of 29%, 68%, and 80%, respectively. According to the CardShock score, patients scored as low risk (0-3), moderate risk (4-5), and high risk (6-9)had in-hospital mortality of 21%, 57%, and 82%, respectively. According to the APACHEⅡ score, patients scored<20, 20-30, and >30 had in-hospital mortality of 19%, 69%, and 93%, respectively. For predicting the in-hospital mortality, the APACHEⅡ score demonstrated excellent discrimination (AUC=0.90, 95% CI: 0.84-0.95). The IABP-ShockⅡ score and CardShock score showed good discrimination (AUC=0.76, 95% CI: 0.68-0.83 and AUC=0.79, 95% CI: 0.72-0.85). The discriminative ability did not significantly differ between the IABP-ShockⅡ score and the CardShock score (0.76 vs 0.79, P>0.05), but both of which were significantly lower than the APACHEⅡ score (0.76 vs 0.90, P<0.05, and 0.79 vs 0.90, P<0.05). At the same time, it was not significantly different between the IABP-ShockⅡ score and the CardShock score (0.76 vs 0.79, P>0.05). All of these three scores were adequately calibrated according to the Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test ( P>0.05).The calibration plot showed accurate calibration of these three scores. Conclusions:Although less accurate than the APACHEⅡ score, the IABP-ShockⅡ score and CardShock score can show accurate prediction for in-hospital mortality of AMI-CS patients.