| Literature DB >> 26640498 |
Yue Jiao1, Ying Han1, Xin Li1, Yi-Gong Fang1, Zhao-Hui Liu1, Wen-Na Zhou1, Jin-Cao Zhou1, Zhong-Chao Wu1, Jin-Hong Yang1, Shao-Yuan Li1, Fan-Ying Meng2, Wei-Wei Xu3.
Abstract
Objective. To identify the optimum treatment protocol for insomnia among auricular, body, and abdominal needling methods. Methods. A three-factor (3 needling protocols) and three-level experimental scheme was designed based on orthogonal method. 54 patients of insomnia differentiated as internal harassment of phlegm-heat syndrome were given two courses of acupuncture treatment (each with 20 times of acupuncture). The therapeutic effects were evaluated by comparing the Pittsburgh sleep quality index (PSQI), Hamilton Depression Scale (HAMD) scores, and Hamilton Anxiety Scale (HAMA) scores of patients before treatment, after one course of treatment, and after two courses of treatment as well as one month after treatment. Results. Body, auricular, and abdominal acupuncture treatments all alleviated symptoms of insomnia, depression, and anxiety, but body and auricular acupuncture had stronger therapeutic effects. Conclusions. Body acupuncture at basic points shall be given priority in protocol selection for insomnia. The second-best choice is auricular acupuncture with basic points combined with points based on Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) theories. Abdominal needling with very quick effect can be an alternative protocol with basic points combined with syndrome differentiation points.Entities:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26640498 PMCID: PMC4657063 DOI: 10.1155/2015/578972
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Evid Based Complement Alternat Med ISSN: 1741-427X Impact factor: 2.629
L9 (34) orthogonal array.
| Patient number | Column number | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| A | B | C | D | |
| 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| 3 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 3 |
| 4 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 |
| 5 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 1 |
| 6 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 2 |
| 7 | 3 | 1 | 3 | 2 |
| 8 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 3 |
| 9 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
Designs for protocols and levels.
| Protocols | Levels |
|---|---|
| A: body acupuncture | Level 1: 0 (body acupuncture not applied) |
| Level 2: basic acupoints | |
| Level 3: basic points + syndrome differentiation acupoints | |
|
| |
| B: auricular acupuncture | Level 1: basic acupoints |
| Level 2: 0 (auricular acupuncture not applied) | |
| Level 3: basic points + acupoints based on TCM theories | |
|
| |
| C: abdominal acupuncture | Level 1: basic acupoints |
| Level 2: basic points + syndrome differentiation acupoints | |
| Level 3: 0 (abdominal acupuncture not applied) | |
Baseline data of patients with insomnia.
| Group | Cases | M | F | Age (years) | Duration of disease (years) | PSQI | HAMD | HAMA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 6 | 1 | 5 | 43.83 ± 11.05 | 3.42 ± 3.58 | 13.67 ± 3.01 | 10.67 ± 4.03 | 7.83 ± 4.17 |
| 2 | 6 | 1 | 5 | 44.17 ± 10.67 | 2.33 ± 3.12 | 11.67 ± 3.93 | 10.50 ± 2.43 | 7.83 ± 3.13 |
| 3 | 6 | 1 | 5 | 40.00 ± 15.87 | 1.58 ± 2.10 | 14.83 ± 1.60 | 12.00 ± 5.10 | 8.33 ± 3.50 |
| 4 | 6 | 1 | 5 | 44.00 ± 14.25 | 5.21 ± 7.46 | 13.33 ± 4.18 | 11.50 ± 6.63 | 8.50 ± 3.83 |
| 5 | 6 | 1 | 5 | 41.67 ± 7.76 | 4.25 ± 5.49 | 12.33 ± 3.14 | 13.50 ± 4.64 | 10.50 ± 5.21 |
| 6 | 6 | 1 | 5 | 43.83 ± 13.00 | 7.75 ± 7.07 | 12.00 ± 3.29 | 9.17 ± 2.32 | 8.33 ± 3.27 |
| 7 | 6 | 1 | 5 | 37.17 ± 10.98 | 2.58 ± 3.77 | 9.83 ± 2.86 | 10.67 ± 3.56 | 9.83 ± 3.25 |
| 8 | 6 | 1 | 5 | 41.50 ± 12.18 | 2.50 ± 2.56 | 11.50 ± 3.45 | 8.00 ± 4.90 | 6.67 ± 5.24 |
| 9 | 6 | 1 | 5 | 41.50 ± 10.41 | 1.19 ± 1.58 | 14.17 ± 3.43 | 11.50 ± 5.24 | 8.17 ± 3.66 |
| Sum | 54 | 9 | 45 | 41.96 ± 11.80 | 4.26 ± 5.34 | 12.59 ± 3.21 | 10.83 ± 4.32 | 8.44 ± 3.92 |
Figure 1Influences on PSQI scores of different protocols at each time point.
PSQI comparison among three levels of each protocol (factor).
| Group | After 1 course | After 2 courses | 1 month after treatment |
|---|---|---|---|
| A1 | 79 | 116 | 111 |
| A2 | 87 | 104 | 134 |
| A3 | 75 | 115 | 81 |
| B1 | 75 | 116 | 101 |
| B2 | 81 | 104 | 92 |
| B3 | 85 | 115 | 133 |
| C1 | 52 | 98 | 91 |
| C2 | 109 | 132 | 125 |
| C3 | 80 | 105 | 110 |
Figure 2Influences on HAMD scores of different protocols at each time point.
HAMD comparison among three levels of each protocol (factor).
| Group | After 1 course | After 2 courses | 1 month after treatment |
|---|---|---|---|
| A1 | 57 | 90 | 85 |
| A2 | 66 | 93 | 109 |
| A3 | 50 | 67 | 41 |
| B1 | 40 | 82 | 57 |
| B2 | 29 | 75 | 59 |
| B3 | 104 | 93 | 119 |
| C1 | 45 | 92 | 66 |
| C2 | 72 | 98 | 88 |
| C3 | 56 | 60 | 81 |
Figure 3Influence on HAMA scores of different protocols at each time point.
HAMA comparison among three levels of each protocol (factor).
| Group | After 1 course | After 2 courses | 1 month after treatment |
|---|---|---|---|
| A1 | 33 | 76 | 78 |
| A2 | 48 | 72 | 95 |
| A3 | 46 | 47 | 58 |
| B1 | 36 | 73 | 94 |
| B2 | 34 | 59 | 53 |
| B3 | 57 | 63 | 84 |
| C1 | 47 | 73 | 76 |
| C2 | 49 | 67 | 79 |
| C3 | 31 | 55 | 76 |