1 Center for Studies in Constitution Research of Traditional Chinese Medicine, School of Basic Medicine, Beijing University of Chinese Medicine, Beijing 100029, P.R. China.
Am J Chin Med. 2017;45(1):1-12. doi: 10.1142/S0192415X1750001X. Epub 2017 Jan 9.
Traditional Chinese medicine (TCM), Japanese-Chinese medicine, and Korean Sasang constitutional medicine have common origins. However, the constitutional medicines of China, Japan, and Korea differ because of the influence of geographical culture, social environment, national practices, and other factors. This paper aimed to compare the constitutional medicines of China, Japan, and Korea in terms of theoretical origin, constitutional classification, constitution and pathogenesis, clinical applications and basic studies that were conducted. The constitutional theories of the three countries are all derived from the Canon of Internal Medicine or Treatise on Febrile and Miscellaneous Diseases of Ancient China. However, the three countries have different constitutional classifications and criteria. Medical sciences in the three countries focus on the clinical applications of constitutional theory. They all agree that different pathogenic laws that guide the treatment of diseases govern different constitutions; thus, patients with different constitutions are treated differently. The three countries also differ in terms of drug formulations and medication. Japanese medicine is prescribed only based on constitution. Korean medicine is based on treatment, in which drugs cannot be mixed. TCM synthesize the treatment model of constitution differentiation, disease differentiation and syndrome differentiation with the treatment thought of treating disease according to three categories of etiologic factors, which reflect the constitution as the characteristic of individual precision treatment. In conclusion, constitutional medicines of China, Japan, and Korea have the same theoretical origin, but differ in constitutional classification, clinical application of constitutional theory on the treatment of diseases, drug formulations and medication.
中医、汉方医学和韩国的四象医学具有共同的起源。然而，由于地理文化、社会环境、民族习俗等因素的影响，中、日、韩三国的体质医学有所不同。本文旨在比较中、日、韩三国体质医学在理论渊源、体质分类、体质与发病机制、临床应用及基础研究等方面的异同。三国的体质理论均源于中国的《内经》或《伤寒杂病论》。但三国的体质分类和标准不同。三国医学均重视体质理论的临床应用，都认为不同的发病规律指导着不同体质的治疗，从而对不同体质的患者进行不同的治疗。三国在药物配方和用药方面也存在差异。日本的汉方医学只根据体质开方，韩国的医学则根据治疗原则，不能混合用药。中医则将体质辨治模式、疾病辨治模式、证候辨治模式与三因辨证施治思想相结合，体现了以体质为特色的个体化精准治疗思想。综上所述，中、日、韩三国体质医学具有相同的理论渊源，但在体质分类、体质理论在疾病治疗中的临床应用、药物配方和用药方面存在差异。
