| Literature DB >> 34104247 |
Daniela Muresan1, Andreea Salcudean2, Daniela Claudia Sabau3, Cristina Raluca Bodo4, Iosif Gabos Grecu5.
Abstract
The aim of the study was to evaluate if bioresonance therapy can offer quantifiable results in patients with recurrent major depressive disorder and with mild, moderate, or severe depressive episodes by decreasing the level of depression due to the application of bioresonance therapy as independently or complementary treatment. The study included 140 patients suffering from depression, divided into three groups. The first group (40 patients) received solely bioresonance therapy, the second group (40 patients) received pharmacological treatment with antidepressants combined with bioresonance therapy, and the third group (60 patients) received solely pharmacological treatment with antidepressants. The assessment of depression was made using the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale, with 17 items, at the beginning of the bioresonance treatment and the end of the five weeks of treatment, aiming to decrease the level of depression. The study identified the existence of a statistically significant difference for the treatment methods applied to the analyzed groups (p=0.0001), and we found that the therapy accelerates the healing process in patients with depressive disorders. Improvement was observed for the analyzed groups, with a decrease of the mean values between the initial and final phase of the level of depression, of delta for Hamilton score of 3.1, 3.8 and 2.3, respectively. We concluded that the bioresonance therapy could be useful in the treatment of recurrent major depressive disorder with moderate depressive episodes independently or as a complementary therapy to antidepressants. ©2021 JOURNAL of MEDICINE and LIFE.Entities:
Keywords: alternative medicine; bioresonance therapy; depression; electromagnetic waves
Year: 2021 PMID: 34104247 PMCID: PMC8169130 DOI: 10.25122/jml-2021-0008
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Med Life ISSN: 1844-122X
Demographic aspects of the study groups.
| Group 1 | Group 2 | Group 3 | P-value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 77.50% | 82.50% | 51.70% | 0.0001 | |
| 56.43 | 64.048 | 73.28 | 0.0001 | |
| Married | 50.00% | 57.50% | 51.70% | 0.56 |
| Divorced | 30.00% | 20.00% | 11.70% | 0.003 |
| Unmarried | 20.00% | 10.00% | 20.00% | 0.09 |
| Widower | 0.00% | 12.50% | 16.17% | 0.0003 |
| Primary | 0.00% | 0.00% | 20.00% | 0.0001 |
| Middle school | 0.00% | 12.50% | 11.70% | 0.001 |
| High scool | 30.00% | 25.00% | 26.70% | 0.70 |
| Secondary education | 12.50% | 12.50% | 3.30% | 0.03 |
| Vocational school | 5.00% | 35.00% | 16.60% | 0.0001 |
| Higher education | 52.50% | 15.00% | 21.70% | 0.001 |
| Rural | 35.00% | 47.50% | 38.30% | 0.18 |
| Urban | 65.00% | 52.50% | 61.70% | 0.18 |
Figure 1.Comparison of the Hamilton Scale between the initial and the final sessions for each group.
Comparative inferential statistics of the Hamilton scale.
| Tukey's multiple comparisons test | Mean dif. | 95% CI of dif. | Significance | Summary |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3.100 | 1.482 to 4.718 | Yes | **** | |
| 3.800 | 2.182 to 5.418 | Yes | **** | |
| 2.300 | 0.9791 to 3.621 | Yes | **** |