| Literature DB >> 35360485 |
Yanping Tang1, Xiaoxia Wei1, Yao Huang2, Junying Huang1, Weihong Jin1, Yanhua Lu1, Tan Ge1, Ying Tang1.
Abstract
To explore the intervention effect of traditional Chinese medicine hot pressing combined with health education in adolescents with asthenopia, 92 adolescents with asthenopia admitted to the outpatient department of Guangming Traditional Chinese Medicine Hospital in Pudong New Area from October 2019 to January 2021 were selected and randomly divided into two groups: the control group and the test group, each with 46 cases. Both received health education. The control group was given sodium hyaluronate eye drops, and the test group was given traditional Chinese medicine hot ironing technique intervention. After 2 courses of treatment, the scores of visual fatigue symptoms, clinical curative effect, and eye refractive power of the two groups were observed. The satisfaction of treatment was compared between the two groups. The scores of asthenopia of the two groups were compared at 6 months after intervention. After the intervention, the scores of visual fatigue symptoms in the control group and the test group were reduced after one or two courses of treatment (control group: t = 4.167, 6.318, and P=0.027, 0.010; test group: t = 4.820, 6.834, and P=0.013, <0.001). The scores of asthenopia symptoms of the trial group after the intervention for one and two courses were significantly lower than those of the control group (P < 0.05); the total clinical effective rate of the trial group was 93.48%, which was significantly higher than that of the control group (80.43%). The difference between the groups was statistically significant (P < 0.05); the left and right eyes of the control group did not change significantly before and after the intervention (P > 0.05). After the intervention, the left and right eyes of the paper group were significantly reduced (P < 0.05). After the intervention, the difference of the two groups in the refractive power of the left and right eyes was statistically significant (P < 0.05). After treatment, the satisfaction of the experimental group was significantly higher than that of the control group (P < 0.05). After 6 months, there was no significant change in the visual fatigue score of the experimental group, while the visual fatigue score of the control group increased significantly. The traditional Chinese medicine ironing combined with health education intervention can improve the symptoms of adolescents' asthenopia and improve the treatment efficiency. The method is safe, and the operation is convenient. It is worthy of clinical promotion.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35360485 PMCID: PMC8964189 DOI: 10.1155/2022/2450197
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Healthc Eng ISSN: 2040-2295 Impact factor: 2.682
Comparison of visual fatigue symptom scores between the control group and the experimental group before and after intervention (±s, points).
| Group | Number | Before intervention | After intervention for 1 course of treatment | After intervention for 2 course of treatment |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control group | 46 | 14.35 ± 3.27 | 8.94 ± 1.20 | 6.61 ± 0.95 |
| Test group | 46 | 14.62 ± 3.22 | 7.30 ± 1.15 | 4.50 ± 0.82 |
| T value | 0.751 | 4.617 | 5.039 | |
|
| 0.240 | 0.031 | 0.016 |
Note. Compared with before intervention, P < 0.05.
Comparison of clinical efficacy between the control group and the experimental group after intervention (case (%)).
| Group | Number | Cure | Markedly effective | Effective | Invalid | Total effective rate |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control group | 46 | 2 (4.35) | 10 (21.74) | 25 (54.35) | 9 (19.57) | 37 (80.43) |
| Test group | 46 | 6 (13.04) | 17 (36.96) | 20 (43.48) | 3 (6.52) | 43 (93.48) |
|
| 4.453 | |||||
|
| 0.036 |
Comparison of the results of eye refractive examination between the control group and the experimental group before and after intervention (±s, D).
| Group | Number | Left eye diopter | Right eye diopter | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Before intervention | After intervention | Before intervention | After intervention | ||
| Test group | 46 | −1.79 ± 0.31 | −1.65 ± 0.26 | −1.73 ± 0.29 | −1.60 ± 0.20 |
| Control group | 46 | −1.81 ± 0.28 | −1.05 ± 0.18 | −1.75 ± 0.30 | −1.03 ± 0.16 |
|
| 0.726 | 4.824 | 0.95 | 4.308 | |
|
| 0.312 | 0.027 | 0.506 | 0.041 | |
Note. Compared with before intervention, P < 0.05.
The scores of asthenopia of the two groups were compared before and 6 months after intervention (±s, points).
| Number | Before the intervention | Six months after intervention |
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control group | 46 | 6.61 ± 0.95 | 7.03 ± 0.52 | −2.630 | 0.010 |
| Test group | 46 | 4.50 ± 0.82 | 4.74 ± 0.73 | −1.183 | 0.142 |