| Literature DB >> 35789604 |
Jing Ma1, Jiaying Luo1, Zhangkai Cheng1, Gui Chen1, Zhiman Liang1, Baoqing Sun1, Feng Wang1.
Abstract
Objective: To explore the clinical effect of Sanfeng Tongqiao Diwan in the treatment of allergic rhinitis.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35789604 PMCID: PMC9250434 DOI: 10.1155/2022/2916223
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Dis Markers ISSN: 0278-0240 Impact factor: 3.464
Figure 1Study design.
Baseline characteristics of patients.
| Sanfeng Tongqiao Diwan ( | Tongqiao Biyan Pian ( |
| |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age (mean ± SD) | 30.39 ± 1.67 | 30.68 ± 2.08 | >0.05 |
| Gender (male/female) | 19/14 | 17/15 | |
| Course of the disease (mean ± SD) | 10.96 ± 1.18 | 11.96 ± 1.36 | |
| Compliance (%) | 0.96 ± 0.10 | 0.97 ± 0.10 | |
| Total VAS score | 17.52 ± 1.42 | 17.00 ± 1.46 | |
| Total symptom relief score | 20.15 ± 0.68 | 19.4 ± 0.75 | |
| Total RQLQ score | 2.42 ± 0.17 | 2.52 ± 0.16 | |
| Activity limitation | 2.62 ± 0.22 | 2.85 ± 0.20 | |
| Sleep problems | 1.94 ± 0.22 | 1.84 ± 0.25 | |
| Nonnose/eye symptoms | 2.16 ± 0.20 | 2.09 ± 0.16 | |
| Practical problems | 3.78 ± 0.24 | 3.69 ± 0.23 | |
| Nose symptoms | 2.86 ± 0.22 | 3.38 ± 0.22 | |
| Eye symptoms | 1.61 ± 0.21 | 1.82 ± 0.25 | |
| Emotion | 1.97 ± 0.22 | 1.96 ± 0.25 | |
| ESS score | 6.54 ± 0.64 | 5.66 ± 0.59 |
P value was a bilateral significance test, and P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
Changes of questionnaire scores before and after treatment in two groups.
| Study ( | Control ( | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Before therapy | After therapy |
| Before therapy | After therapy |
| |
| Compliance (%) | 0.96 ± 0.10 | 0.97 ± 0.10 | <0.001 | |||
| Total VAS score | 17.52 ± 1.42 | 8.30 ± 1.08 | <0.001 | 17.00 ± 1.46 | 8.20 ± 1.06 | <0.001 |
| Total symptom relief score | 20.15 ± 0.68 | 12.06 ± 0.70 | <0.001 | 19.4 ± 0.75 | 11.84 ± 0.89 | <0.001 |
| Total RQLQ score | 2.42 ± 0.17 | 1.29 ± 0.14 | <0.001 | 2.52 ± 0.16 | 1.29 ± 0.16 | <0.001 |
| Activity limitation | 2.62 ± 0.22 | 1.54 ± 0.19 | <0.001 | 2.85 ± 0.20 | 1.59 ± 0.20 | <0.001 |
| Sleep problems | 1.94 ± 0.22 | 0.83 ± 0.15 | <0.001 | 1.84 ± 0.25 | 0.89 ± 0.17 | 0.004 |
| Nonnose/eye symptoms | 2.16 ± 0.20 | 0.95 ± 0.12 | <0.001 | 2.09 ± 0.16 | 1.07 ± 0.14 | <0.001 |
| Practical problems | 3.78 ± 0.24 | 1.90 ± 0.18 | <0.001 | 3.69 ± 0.23 | 1.89 ± 0.21 | <0.001 |
| Nose symptoms | 2.86 ± 0.22 | 1.80 ± 0.18 | 0.001 | 3.38 ± 0.22 | 1.68 ± 0.21 | <0.001 |
| Eye symptoms | 1.61 ± 0.21 | 0.95 ± 0.15 | 0.022 | 1.82 ± 0.25 | 0.76 ± 0.16 | 0.001 |
| Emotion | 1.97 ± 0.22 | 1.04 ± 0.18 | 0.002 | 1.96 ± 0.25 | 1.14 ± 0.21 | 0.006 |
| ESS score | 6.54 ± 0.64 | 4.6 ± 0.61 | 0.026 | 5.66 ± 0.59 | 4.66 ± 0.61 | 0.254 |
Note: VAS: visual analogue scale; RQLQ: Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire; ESS: Epworth sleepiness scale.
Figure 2Volcanic map.
Figure 3Changes of patients' questionnaire score in different periods. The solid line was the study group, and the dashed line was the control group.
Changes of efficacy before and after treatment in two groups.
| Group | Number of cases | Ineffective | Effective | Remarkable effect |
| Total effective rate |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Study | 33 | 8 | 23 | 2 | 0.642 | 75.76% |
| Control | 32 | 11 | 17 | 4 | 65.62% |
Incidence rate of adverse reactions in two groups.
| Group | Number of cases | Adverse reactions | Normal |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Study | 33 | 2 (6.06%) | 31 (93.94%) | 0.512 |
| Control | 32 | 1 (3.12%) | 31 (96.88%) |