Home | Register | Login | Inquiries | Alerts | Sitemap |  

Advanced Search
JKM > Volume 45(1); 2024 > Article
Han: The Potential of Yangdorak Diagnosis Application of Gallstone



The aim of the study was to investigate the potential of Yangdorak diagnosis application against gallstone scanned by Ultrasound diagnosis.


For this aim, among 97 patients who had visited Julip Korean Medicine Clinic from July 2016 to June 2023, 30 patients with no gallstone as a control group and 67 patients with gallstone and diagnosed by ultrasonography, were subjected to Yangdorak diagnosis. Then, the changes in Gallbladder Meridian (GB) value as F5 AVE(average of left and right GB value) by Yangdorak were comparatively analyzed between gallstone and non-gallstone groups and statistical significance was evaluated by Tukey’s multiple comparison test using Prism software.


After all subjects were evaluated by the Yangdorak and ultrasonography to assess the potential of the Yangdorak diagnosis for gallstone, it was noteworthy that the Yangdorak values relevant to F5 AVE of female gallstone group(N=36) were significantly (p<0.001) decreased compared to the control group (N=30), while there was no significance in male gallstone group(N=31). Also, it was recognized significant difference between male and female groups.


Based on these results, if the Yangdorak value can be estimated from a decrease with clinical symptom in female patient, it is recommended to follow up the ultrasonography test for diagnosing the gallstone.

Fig. 1
Large-sized Gallstone by Ultrasound. From left side, 1) 17.1mm, 2) 26.3mm, 3) 17.1mm, 4) Pyramidal stone
Fig. 2
Medium size 8.78mm, Small-size 3.19mm Gallstone by Ultrasound
Fig. 3
Gallbladder Meridian Deficiency(Left) and Gallbladder Meridian Excess(Right side)
Fig. 4
F5 AVE Value of Control Group, Male Gallstone Group & Female Gallstone Group
Fig. 5
Gallbladder Polyp by Ultrasound
Fig. 6
Gallbladder Meridian Excess and Liver Meridian Excess at the Same Time
Table 1
Comparison of Yangdorak Mean Value of Control Group & Gallstone Group
Numbers Mean P value
Control Group 30 66.23 0.032
Gallstone Group 67 58.94
Table 2
Comparison of Yangdorak Value of Male Control Group, Female Control Group, Male Gallstone Group & Female Gallstone Group
Numbers P Value of Variances differ. Signif. P Value of Means Signif. Differ.
Male Control Group & Female Control Group 15/15 0.729 0.057
Male Control Group & Male Gallstone Group 15/31 0.365 0.986
Female Control group & Female gallstone group 15/36 0.472 0.023
Table 3
Yangdorak Value of Control Group, Male Gallstone Group & Female Gallstone Group
Numbers Ages Mean±SD(μA)
Control Group 30 55 66.23±17.08
Male gallstone Group 31 54.65 72.24±21.42
Female gallstone Group 36 59.86 47.49±18.59
Table 4
Tukey’s Multiple Comparison Test of F5 AVE Value among Control Group, Male Gallstone Group & Female Gallstone Group
Tukey’s Multiple Comparison Test Mean Diff Significant? P < 0.05? Adjusted P Value Summary
Control vs Male −6.009 No 0.232 ns
Control vs Female 18.75 Yes <.001 ***
Male vs Female 24.76 Yes <.001 ***


1. Kang D. H., Kang H. K., Koo J. H., Kwun D. M., Kim B. L., Kim Y. M., Han J. B.2022. Textbook of Ultrasonography: [3]. Seoul: Daihaks Publishing Company;3–22:p. 215–242.

2. Kim S. J., Lee J. Y.Ultrasound Diagnosis of Gallbladder: Choi, Byung Ihn. Ultrasound Diagnosis of the Abdomen. 3:Seoul: Ilchokak;2022. p. 173–190.

3. Kwun D. M., Lee M. H.2011; Prevalence and risk factors of gallstones on the abdominal sonography. The Korean Society of Medical Sonographers. 2:1. 51–59.

4. Gotokimia. The Oriental and Western Medical Study on the Ryodoraku. Seoul: Gunja Publisher;2009. p. 3–5.

5. The whole country Korean medicine college of Diagnosis and biofunctional medicine. 2014. Biofunctional medicine. Seoul: Koonja Publisher;p. 132–144.

6. Heo J.1976. Donguibogam. Seoul: Namsandang;p. 770

7. Lee J. I., Hur K. Y., Song H. S.2013; Influence of Dyspepsia Dependent Ryodoraku Score Upon ‘Soeum Person’ Diagnosed by Portable Ryodoraku Device. The Acupuncture. 30:5. 77–86. http://dx.doi.org/10.13045/acupunct.201304

8. Han G. E.1992; A clinical Observation on 1068 Cases of Obstructive-Fullness Performed Neurometer Diagnosis. Journal of Korean Medicine. 13:2. 57–62.

9. Han G. E.1995; A Case of Oriental Medical Treatment for Shoulder pain with Gallstone by Ultrasonic Diagnosis. The 8th Int’l Congress of Oriental Medicine. 156–157.

10. Shigeru Nakamura. 2020; Abdominal Sonography: Medianbook. 91–100.

11. Lee S. S., Lee D. K.2018; What is the proper way to apply the multiple comparison test? Korean Journal of Anesthesiology. 71:5. 353–360. https://doi.org/10.4097/kja.d.18.00242
pmid pmc

12. Marschall H. U., Einarsson C.2007; Gallstone disease. 261:6. 529–542. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2796.2007.01783.x

13. Novacek G.2006; Gender and gallstone disease. 156:19–20. 527–33. https://doi:10.1007/s10354-006-0346-x

14. Murphy M. C., Gibney B., Gillespie C., Hynes J., Bolster F.2020; Gallstones top to toe: what the radiologist needs to know. Insights into Imaging. 11:13. 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13244-019-0825-4
pmid pmc

15. Shin Y. W.2023; Introduction to Statistics. kyungmoon Company;268–269.

Editorial office contact information
3F, #26-27 Gayang-dong, Gangseo-gu Seoul, 157-200 Seoul, Korea
The Society of Korean Medicine
Tel : +82-2-2658-3627   Fax : +82-2-2658-3631   E-mail : skom1953.journal@gmail.com
About |  Browse Articles |  Current Issue |  For Authors and Reviewers
Developed in M2PI