| Literature DB >> 36081955 |
Abstract
Objective: To explore the clinical effects of tandospirone citrate assisted by drawing therapy (DT) on medication compliance and sleep quality in patients with anxiety disorders.Entities:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36081955 PMCID: PMC9448592 DOI: 10.1155/2022/9295627
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Emerg Med Int ISSN: 2090-2840 Impact factor: 1.621
Comparison of clinical efficacy between the two groups (n, %).
| Group | Number of cases | Cure | Significant effect | Efficient | Invalid | Total efficiency (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Observation group | 64 | 15 | 38 | 7 | 2 | 62 (96.88%) |
| Control group | 64 | 7 | 26 | 13 | 9 | 55 (86.94%) |
|
| 4.873 | |||||
|
| 0.027 |
Figure 1Comparison of clinical efficacy between the two groups.
Comparison of anxiety scores and sleep quality between the two groups of patients (±s, points).
| Group | Number of cases | HAMA | PSQI | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Before the treatment | After the treatment | Before the treatment | After the treatment | ||
| Observation group | 64 | 26.38 ± 5.44 | 9.47 ± 1.73# | 16.98 ± 3.30 | 7.05 ± 1.91# |
| Control group | 64 | 26.50 ± 5.25 | 12.72 ± 3.62# | 16.88 ± 2.83 | 10.41 ± 2.45# |
|
| 0.132 | 6.484 | 0.201 | 8.649 | |
|
| 0.895 | <0.001 | 0.841 | <0.001 | |
Note. Compared with before treatment, #P < 0.05.
Figure 2Changes in HAMA and PSQI scores before and after treatment in the two groups.
Comparison of medication compliance between two groups of patients (n, %).
| Group | Number of cases | Full compliance | Partial compliance | Noncompliance | Medication compliance (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Observation group | 64 | 34 | 26 | 4 | 60 (93.75%) |
| Control group | 64 | 25 | 27 | 13 | 51 (79.69%) |
|
| 5.494 | ||||
|
| 0.019 |
Figure 3Comparison of medication compliance between the two groups.
Comparison of quality of life between the two groups (±s, points).
| Group | Number of cases | Environmental factor | Social relationship | Physiological aspects | Psychological aspect | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Before the treatment | After the treatment | Before the treatment | After the treatment | Before the treatment | After the treatment | Before the treatment | After the treatment | ||
| Observation group | 64 | 77.06 ± 7.35 | 89.59 ± 4.66# | 74.13 ± 6.45 | 86.44 ± 5.24# | 56.98 ± 5.35 | 73.52 ± 6.87# | 51.08 ± 4.87 | 82.16 ± 6.54# |
| Control group | 64 | 75.02 ± 5.78 | 84.05 ± 4.96# | 73.39 ± 5.91 | 80.69 ± 4.67# | 56.58 ± 6.28 | 64.83 ± 5.39# | 51.06 ± 6.30 | 73.83 ± 6.79# |
|
| 1.752 | 6.524 | 0.672 | 6.554 | 0.394 | 7.896 | 0.016 | 7.066 | |
|
| 0.082 | <0.001 | 0.503 | <0.001 | 0.694 | <0.001 | 0.988 | <0.001 | |
Note. Compared with before treatment, #P < 0.05.
Figure 4Changes of quality of life scores before and after treatment in the two groups of patients.
Comparison of adverse conditions between the two groups (n, %).
| Group | Number of cases | Lethargy | Nausea | Decreased appetite | The adverse reaction rate (%) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Observation group | 64 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 4 (6.25%) |
| Control group | 64 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 3 (4.69%) |
|
| 0.151 | ||||
|
| 0.697 |
Figure 5Comparison of adverse reactions between the two groups.