Disease Classification in Hansaraj Nidan and Madhava Nidana: A Comparative Critical Review

Ayurvedic nosology has developed from the classical compendia into specialized diagnostic texts.Madhava Nidana is an influential and systematic text on disease diagnosis, whereas Hansaraj Nidan is a later and comparatively unexplored diagnostic work.This review compares the historical organization, disease classification, diagnostic components, disease subtypes, complications, and prognostic descriptions of the two texts.A comparative critical textual analysis was conducted using authenticated editions and recognized commentaries, with descriptive quantitative content mapping.The five components of the Nidana Panchaka -Nidana (causative factors), Purvarupa (prodromal features), Rupa (established clinical features), Upashaya-Anupashaya (relieving and aggravating factors), and Samprapti (pathogenesis) -along with Bheda (disease subtypes), Upadrava (complications), and prognosis were systematically extracted for each disease record.Common, unique, and differently classified disease entities were identified, and a diagnostic-completeness score was calculated based on the explicit documentation of these components, with interpretations reviewed by subject experts in Ayurveda.The two texts showed substantial overlap but differed in chapter structure, terminology, disease subdivision, and diagnostic emphasis.Hansaraj Nidan presented distinctive variants of Jwara (febrile disorders), Hikka (hiccup), Shwasa (breathing disorders), Udavarta (a disorder associated with upward movement of bodily urges), and ophthalmic diseases, whereas Madhava Nidana documented pathogenesis, complications, and prognosis more frequently across the records assessed.Rupa and Nidana were the most consistently documented diagnostic components in both texts.Both texts contribute substantially to Ayurvedic disease classification, and comparative mapping highlights their shared terminology, diagnostic distinctions, and changes in disease classification.The findings are descriptive and reflect the documentation content of the editions examined.