| Literature DB >> 35860621 |
KaiPi Wu1, HongAi Yin2, AnMin Du2.
Abstract
Objective: To explore the effects of modified Jianpi Qushi Heluo decoction on scores of TCM syndromes, 24 h urinary albumin (UA), and plasma albumin (Alb) in idiopathic membranous nephropathy (IMN) of spleen-kidney qi deficiency.Entities:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35860621 PMCID: PMC9293544 DOI: 10.1155/2022/6061709
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Emerg Med Int ISSN: 2090-2840 Impact factor: 1.621
Comparison of therapeutic efficacy between the two groups of patients (n, %).
| Group | Number of cases | Complete relief | Partial relief | Invalid | Overall efficiency |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Observation group | 42 | 22 | 16 | 4 | 90.48 |
| Control group | 42 | 17 | 14 | 11 | 73.81 |
|
| 4.041 | ||||
|
| 0.133 |
Comparison of TCM syndrome scores between the two groups of patients ( ± s, points).
| Group | Number of cases | Psoas soreness | Tiredness | Foamy urine | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Before the treatment | After treatment | Before the treatment | After treatment | Before the treatment | After treatment | ||
| Observation group | 42 | 2.40 ± 0.54 | 0.67 ± 0.48 | 2.52 ± 0.59 | 0.71 ± 0.46 | 2.19 ± 0.45 | 0.71 ± 0.30 |
| Control group | 42 | 2.31 ± 0.47 | 0.95 ± 0.22 | 2.74 ± 0.63 | 0.93 ± 0.34 | 2.33 ± 0.61 | 1.10 ± 0.48 |
|
| 0.860 | 3.537 | 1.608 | 2.433 | 1.215 | 2.602 | |
|
| 0.392 | 0.001 | 0.112 | 0.017 | 0.228 | 0.011 | |
Compared with the group of before treatment, P < 0.05.
Comparison of biochemical indicators between the two groups of patients ( ± s, n = 42).
| Group | 24 h UA (g) | Alb (g/L) | TG (mmol/L) | TC (mmol/L) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Before the treatment | After treatment | Before the treatment | After treatment | Before the treatment | After treatment | Before the treatment | After treatment | |
| Observation group | 3.55 ± 0.94 | 1.09 ± 0.27 | 27.14 ± 2.32 | 42.55 ± 5.20 | 6.29 ± 1.26 | 2.48 ± 0.47 | 8.67 ± 1.12 | 3.29 ± 1.08 |
| Control group | 3.62 ± 0.91 | 2.39 ± 0.62 | 26.80 ± 2.85 | 37.54 ± 3.35 | 6.24 ± 1.33 | 3.31 ± 0.73 | 8.49 ± 1.03 | 4.23 ± 1.20 |
|
| 0.313 | 12.556 | 0.585 | 5.251 | 0.177 | 6.255 | 0.740 | 3.746 |
|
| 0.755 | <0.001 | 0.560 | <0.001 | 0.860 | <0.001 | 0.461 | <0.001 |
Compared with the group of before treatment, P < 0.05.
Comparison of immune function between two groups of patients ( ± s, n = 42).
| Group | Th1 (%) | Th2 (%) | Th17 (%) | Th1/Th2 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Before the treatment | After treatment | Before the treatment | After treatment | Before the treatment | After treatment | Before the treatment | After treatment | |
| Observation group | 37.71 ± 3.22 | 23.53 ± 3.30 | 55.07 ± 2.11 | 58.26 ± 4.16 | 7.46 ± 1.49 | 5.15 ± 1.20 | 0.67 ± 0.11 | 0.42 ± 0.10 |
| Control group | 36.79 ± 1.80 | 27.36 ± 3.21 | 54.88 ± 2.31 | 56.96 ± 3.26 | 7.37 ± 1.48 | 6.39 ± 1.02 | 0.63 ± 0.19 | 0.48 ± 0.14 |
|
| 1.611 | 5.395 | 0.404 | 1.588 | 0.274 | 5.070 | 1.096 | 2.572 |
|
| 0.111 | <0.001 | 0.688 | 0.116 | 0.785 | <0.001 | 0.276 | 0.012 |
Compared with the group of before treatment, P < 0.05.