| Literature DB >> 35071591 |
Yan Ma1, Yanbo Ma2, Xiuqing Zhang1, Xuejing Wang1, Zhigang Sun2.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose was to evaluate the treatment effect of iron proteinsuccinylate oral solution combined with vitamin A and D drops on children with nutritional iron deficiency anemia.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35071591 PMCID: PMC8776466 DOI: 10.1155/2022/2972617
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biomed Res Int Impact factor: 3.411
General information of patients.
| Items | Control group | Observation group |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex ratio | 15 : 16 | 1 : 1 | 0.03 | 0.83 |
| Average age (years old) | 6.73 ± 0.53 | 6.69 ± 0.59 | 0.40 | 0.44 |
| Body mass index (kg/m2) | 13.98 ± 0.53 | 13.97 ± 0.56 | 0.10 | 0.75 |
| SI level ( | 11.98 ± 2.09 | 12.01 ± 2.13 | 0.08 | 0.77 |
| SF level ( | 85.29 ± 8.03 | 85.29 ± 8.03 | 0.06 | 0.81 |
| Serum TRF level ( | 7.23 ± 1.19 | 7.27 ± 1.11 | 0.19 | 0.63 |
| CD3+ level (%) | 40.29 ± 3.29 | 40.31 ± 3.27 | 0.03 | 0.83 |
| CD4+level (%) | 37.09 ± 2.09 | 37.03 ± 2.07 | 0.16 | 0.71 |
Figure 1Comparison of SI levels between the two groups of children before and after treatment. Note: The abscissa represents the groups, and the ordinate represents the SI level of patients. ∗ indicated that there was a significant difference in the SI levels of children in the control group before treatment (11.97 ± 2.13 μmol/L) and after treatment (15.09 ± 3.69 μmol/L; t = 4.99 and P = 1.6e − 5). ∗∗ indicated that there was a significant difference in the SI levels of children in the observation group before treatment (11.99 ± 2.09 μmol/L) and after treatment (16.91 ± 3.71 μmol/L; t = 4.50 and P = 8.2e − 5). ∗∗∗ indicated that there was a significant difference in the SI levels of children in both groups after treatment (t = 2.74 and P = 4.5e − 3).
Figure 2Comparison of SF levels between the two groups of children before and after treatment. Note: The abscissa represents the groups, and the ordinate represents the SF level of patients. ∗ indicated that there was a significant difference in the SF levels of children in the control group before treatment (85.31 ± 8.96 μg/L) and after treatment (156.19 ± 12.97 μg/L; t = 3.84 and P < 0.01). ∗∗ indicated that there was a significant difference in the SF levels of children in the observation group before treatment (85.69 ± 8.99 μg/L) and after treatment (173.32 ± 13.32 μg/L; t = 3.47 and P < 0.01). ∗∗∗ indicated that there was a significant difference in the SF levels of children in both groups after treatment (t = 7.26 and P < 0.01).
Figure 3Comparison of TRF levels between the two groups of children before and after treatment. Note: The abscissa represents the groups, and the ordinate represents the serum TRF level of patients. ∗ indicated that there was a significant difference in the serum TRF levels of children in the control group before treatment (7.23 ± 1.21 μg/L) and after treatment (3.77 ± 0.61 μg/L; t = 12.41 and P < 0.01). ∗∗ indicated that there was a significant difference in the serum TRF levels of children in the observation group before treatment (7.29 ± 1.09 μg/L) and after treatment (2.95 ± 0.43 μg/L; t = 16.38 and P < 0.01). ∗∗∗ indicated that there was a significant difference in the serum TRF levels of children in both groups after treatment (t = 8.65 and P < 0.01).
Immune level of children in two groups.
| Indicators | Groups | Cases | Before treatment | After treatment |
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CD3+ (%) | Control group | 62 | 40.32 ± 3.57 | 49.13 ± 3.35 | 5.88 | 6.5 |
| Observation group | 62 | 40.27 ± 3.16 | 55.09 ± 4.19 | 5.29 | 3.1 | |
|
| 0.08 | 8.75 | ||||
|
| 0.77 | 5.6 | ||||
|
| ||||||
| CD4+ (%) | Control group | 62 | 37.13 ± 2.21 | 41.97 ± 3.03 | 6.53 | 9.6 |
| Observation group | 62 | 37.29 ± 2.13 | 45.29 ± 3.31 | 6.10 | 3.6 | |
|
| 0.41 | 5.83 | ||||
|
| 0.42 | 5.3 | ||||
|
| ||||||
| CD4+/CD8+ | Control group | 62 | 1.17 ± 0.19 | 1.39 ± 0.23 | 5.48 | 5.9 |
| Observation group | 62 | 1.15 ± 0.17 | 1.63 ± 0.27 | 4.67 | 5.7 | |
|
| 0.62 | 5.33 | ||||
|
| 0.31 | 4.9 | ||||
Treatment effect between the two methods.
| Groups | Cases | Marked effective | Effective | Ineffective | Effective rate (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control group | 62 | 25 | 26 | 11 | 82.56 |
| Observation group | 62 | 36 | 23 | 3 | 95.16 |
|
| 6.74 | ||||
|
| 0.007 | ||||