| Literature DB >> 35965680 |
Ying Xie1, Meng-Ting Huan1, Jia-Jia Sang2, Song-Song Luo1, Xin-Tian Kong3, Zhou-Yu Xie1, Shi-Hui Zheng1, Qing-Bo Wei1, Yun-Chuan Wu1.
Abstract
The aim of the study was to investigate the clinical effects of abdominal massage on patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and its influence on the intestinal microflora. We conducted a randomized, controlled clinical trial. A total of 60 patients with T2DM, who met the inclusion criteria, were randomly allocated to the control group, the routine massage group, and the abdominal massage group. The control group received health education and maintained their hypoglycemic drug treatment plan. The routine massage group and the abdominal massage group received different massage interventions. In addition to glucose and lipid metabolism indicators, we quantitatively analyzed the gut microbiota to assess the effects of massage on the intestinal microflora of patients with T2DM. Compared with the control group, the abdominal massage improved levels of glycated hemoglobin, total cholesterol, Enterobacter, and Bifidobacteria with significant differences (P = 0.02, P = 0.03, P = 0.03, and P = 0.03). The comparison within group showed that the levels of the four bacterial genera in the abdominal massage group revealed significant differences before and after treatment (P = 0.006, P < 0.001, P < 0.001, and P = 0.002). The comparison between the routine massage group and the abdominal massage group was not significantly different in all levels of test indices. The abdominal massage group regulated levels of Enterobacter and Lactobacilli to a greater extent than the routine massage group. Additionally, abdominal massage decreased Enterococcus levels. The results of this study showed that abdominal massage has clinical advantages over routine massage. Specifically, this intervention may correct microflora disturbances to a certain extent.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35965680 PMCID: PMC9365616 DOI: 10.1155/2022/2286598
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Oxid Med Cell Longev ISSN: 1942-0994 Impact factor: 7.310
Characteristics of participants (χ ± s).
| Group | Number (male/female) | Age | Duration | Weight | BMI |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control | 17 (7/10) | 64.24 ± 9.24 | 6.88 ± 6.26 | 66.91 ± 8.82 | 25.66 ± 1.12 |
| Routine massage | 18 (9/9) | 67.50 ± 6.72 | 8.11 ± 7.88 | 67.57 ± 6.93 | 25.20 ± 1.25 |
| Abdominal massage | 19 (9/10) | 63.11 ± 6.83 | 6.16 ± 5.59 | 70.27 ± 7.81 | 26.00 ± 2.18 |
|
| 0.87 | 0.21 | 0.67 | 0.40 | 0.33 |
Number of dropouts or eliminated participants.
| Group | Number | Dropouts or eliminated |
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Control | 17 (85.0%) | 3 (15.0%) | |
| Routine massage | 18 (90.0%) | 2 (10.0%) | 0.57 |
| Abdominal massage | 19 (95.0%) | 1 (5.0%) |
Comparison of FBG, PBG, and HbAlc values before and after treatment (χ ± s).
| Groups | FBG (mmol/L) | PBG (mmol/L) | HbAlc (%) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Before | After | Before | After | Before | After | |
| Control | 8.02 ± 0.96 | 7.70 ± 0.88 | 11.28 ± 1.82 | 10.59 ± 1.86 | 7.20 ± 0.59 | 7.13 ± 0.60 |
| Routine massage | 8.63 ± 1.44 | 7.21 ± 1.08∗∗ | 13.02 ± 2.60 | 9.74 ± 1.86∗∗ | 7.53 ± 0.98 | 6.68 ± 0.83∗∗ |
| Abdominal massage | 8.76 ± 1.63 | 7.08 ± 0.92∗∗ | 13.19 ± 3.16 | 9.72 ± 1.96∗∗ | 7.49 ± 1.17 | 6.45 ± 0.97∗∗# |
|
| 1.40 | 2.03 | 2.88 | 1.21 | 0.63 | 3.13 |
|
| 0.26 | 0.14 | 0.07 | 0.31 | 0.54 | 0.05 |
Comparison within group, ∗P < 0.05 and ∗∗P < 0.01. Comparison with control group, #P < 0.05 and ##P < 0.01.
TC and TG levels before and after treatment (χ ± s).
| Group | TC (mmol/L) | TG (mmol/L) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Before | After | Before | After | |
| Control | 4.43 ± 1.09 | 3.86 ± 0.71∗ | 2.12 ± 2.72 | 1.68 ± 1.64 |
| Routine massage | 5.01 ± 0.93 | 4.50 ± 0.70# | 2.13 ± 1.04 | 1.93 ± 1.02 |
| Abdominal massage | 5.52 ± 0.65 | 4.59 ± 0.61∗∗# | 2.24 ± 2.44 | 1.55 ± 1.00 |
|
| 3.37 | 3.36 | 0.01 | 0.22 |
|
| 0.05 | 0.05 | 0.99 | 0.80 |
Comparison within group, ∗P < 0.05 and ∗∗P < 0.01. Comparison with control group, #P < 0.05 and ##P < 0.01.
HDL and LDL levels before and after treatment (χ ± s).
| Group | HDL (mmol/L) | LDL (mmol/L) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Before | After | Before | After | |
| Control | 1.19 ± 0.26 | 1.04 ± 0.22∗∗ | 2.73 ± 0.84 | 2.23 ± 0.50∗ |
| Routine massage | 1.21 ± 0.10 | 1.18 ± 0.12 | 3.03 ± 0.81 | 2.59 ± 0.47∗ |
| Abdominal massage | 1.31 ± 0.34 | 1.27 ± 0.35# | 3.24 ± 0.55 | 2.62 ± 0.52∗ |
|
| 0.59 | 2.22 | 1.08 | 1.92 |
|
| 0.56 | 0.13 | 0.35 | 0.17 |
Comparison within group, ∗P < 0.05 and ∗∗P < 0.01. Comparison with control group, #P < 0.05 and ##P < 0.01.
Enterococcus and Enterobacter levels before and after treatment (χ ± s).
| Group | Enterococcus (LogN/g) | Enterobacter (LogN/g) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Before | After | Before | After | |
| Control | 8.53 ± 0.85 | 8.48 ± 0.56 | 9.38 ± 0.67 | 9.38 ± 0.61 |
| Routine massage | 8.48 ± 0.98 | 8.39 ± 0.78 | 9.34 ± 1.07 | 9.16 ± 0.89∗ |
| Abdominal massage | 8.53 ± 1.10 | 8.22 ± 0.97∗∗ | 9.19 ± 0.85 | 8.81 ± 0.74∗∗# |
|
| 0.01 | 0.53 | 0.24 | 2.56 |
|
| 0.99 | 0.59 | 0.79 | 0.09 |
Comparison within group, ∗P < 0.05 and ∗∗P < 0.01. Comparison with control group, #P < 0.05 and ##P < 0.01.
Bifidobacterium and Lactobacillus levels before and after treatment (χ ± s).
| Group | Bifidobacteria (Log N/g) | Lactobacilli (Log N/g) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Before | After | Before | After | |
| Control | 8.13 ± 0.59 | 8.05 ± 0.58 | 6.84 ± 0.91 | 6.79 ± 0.92 |
| Routine massage | 8.10 ± 0.73 | 8.51 ± 0.77∗∗ | 6.32 ± 1.19 | 6.63 ± 1.16∗ |
| Abdominal massage | 8.07 ± 0.65 | 8.56 ± 0.74∗∗# | 6.64 ± 1.29 | 6.99 ± 1.09∗∗ |
|
| 0.04 | 2.84 | 0.91 | 0.52 |
|
| 0.96 | 0.07 | 0.41 | 0.60 |
Comparison within group, ∗P < 0.05 and ∗∗P < 0.01. Comparison with control group, #P < 0.05 and ##P < 0.01.