| Literature DB >> 26504483 |
Yine Hu1, Huayuan Yang1, Pin Wang2, Tangyi Liu1, Wenchao Tang1.
Abstract
Skin impedance at acupuncture points (APs) has been used as a diagnostic aid for more than 50 years. In this study, we have a diagnostic tool (JXT-2008) to measure the skin impedance of ear APs of 30 breast cancer patients and the corresponding skin impedance of ear APs of 30 healthy humans, and then we compared these changes in ear AP impedance in breast cancer patients and healthy individuals.Entities:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26504483 PMCID: PMC4609471 DOI: 10.1155/2015/909246
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Evid Based Complement Alternat Med ISSN: 1741-427X Impact factor: 2.629
Figure 1Illustration of our measurement device. (a) Hardware schematic diagram of the skin impedance detection system (JXT-2008). (b) Software schematic diagram of the skin impedance detection system (JXT-2008).
Figure 2Ear APs location. ① CO18 (Neifenmi); ② AT4 (Pizhixia); ③ TG2p (Shenshangxian); ④ BP-B3 (Ruxian); and ⑤ MT2 (malignant tumor 2).
Comparison of LIA, LDA, RIA, and RDA between patients and controls in CO18.
| Index | Groups | Number | Area ( |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LIA | Breast cancer | 30 | 57.20 ± 41.09 | 0.39 | 0.58 |
| Control | 30 | 52.04 ± 26.03 | |||
|
| |||||
| LDA | Breast cancer | 30 | 52.20 ± 39.16 | 0.53 | 0.84 |
| Control | 30 | 45.30 ± 22.39 | |||
|
| |||||
| RIA | Breast cancer | 30 | 39.90 ± 18.27 | 0.33 | 0.59 |
| Control | 30 | 43.29 ± 25.60 | |||
|
| |||||
| RDA | Breast cancer | 30 | 36.16 ± 15.66 | 0.48 | 0.62 |
| Control | 30 | 39.23 ± 22.24 | |||
Comparison of LIA, LDA, RIA, and RDA between patients and controls in MT2.
| Index | Groups | Number | Area ( |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LIA | BC patients | 30 | 79.64 ± 47.79 | 0.0047 | 3.42 |
| Control | 30 | 47.36 ± 19.77 | |||
|
| |||||
| LDA | BC patients | 30 | 70.47 ± 43.45 | 0.0028 | 3.32 |
| Control | 30 | 41.84 ± 18.60 | |||
|
| |||||
| RIA | BC patients | 30 | 81.40 ± 46.91 | 0.0030 | 3.31 |
| Control | 30 | 49.50 ± 24.18 | |||
|
| |||||
| RDA | BC patients | 30 | 71.12 ± 41.20 | 0.0015 | 3.52 |
| Control | 30 | 41.81 ± 19.49 | |||
P < 0.01.
Comparison of LIA, LDA, RIA, and RDA between patients and controls in AT4.
| Index | Groups | Number | Area ( |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LIA | Breast cancer | 30 | 85.74 ± 46.44 | 0.64 | 0.46 |
| Control | 30 | 80.78 ± 36.96 | |||
|
| |||||
| LDA | Breast cancer | 30 | 76.94 ± 43.31 | 0.82 | 0.62 |
| Control | 30 | 70.84 ± 32.89 | |||
|
| |||||
| RIA | Breast cancer | 30 | 70.15 ± 35.80 | 0.65 | 0.26 |
| Control | 30 | 67.87 ± 33.04 | |||
|
| |||||
| RDA | Breast cancer | 30 | 62.31 ± 31.24 | 0.77 | 0.23 |
| Control | 30 | 60.54 ± 29.45 | |||
Comparison of LIA, LDA, RIA, and RDA between patients and controls in TG2p.
| Index | Groups | Number | Area ( |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LIA | Breast cancer | 30 | 68.70 ± 43.80 | 0.49 | 1.06 |
| Control | 30 | 58.15 ± 32.40 | |||
|
| |||||
| LDA | Breast cancer | 30 | 59.69 ± 39.20 | 0.42 | 1.10 |
| Control | 30 | 49.96 ± 28.39 | |||
|
| |||||
| RIA | Breast cancer | 30 | 57.86 ± 39.19 | 0.43 | 0.43 |
| Control | 30 | 54.03 ± 28.13 | |||
|
| |||||
| RDA | Breast cancer | 30 | 50.08 ± 33.65 | 0.38 | 0.35 |
| Control | 30 | 47.37 ± 24.58 | |||
Comparison of the LIA, LDA, RIA, and RDA between patients and controls in BP-B3.
| Index | Groups | Number | Area ( |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LIA | Breast cancer | 30 | 123.95 ± 45.74 | 0.11 | 1.58 |
| Control | 30 | 105.34 ± 45.55 | |||
|
| |||||
| LDA | Breast cancer | 30 | 109.15 ± 43.22 | 0.20 | 1.29 |
| Control | 30 | 94.85 ± 42.92 | |||
|
| |||||
| RIA | Breast cancer | 30 | 103.05 ± 46.15 | 0.77 | 0.28 |
| Control | 30 | 106.44 ± 46.99 | |||
|
| |||||
| RDA | Breast cancer | 30 | 92.46 ± 42.62 | 0.91 | 0.11 |
| Control | 30 | 93.66 ± 42.33 | |||