| Literature DB >> 36249458 |
Abolfazl Dehghanpour1, Monire Seyedhashemi2, Ahmad Zare Bidaki1, Zohre Mousavi1, Majid Emtiazy2, Mehrdad Shakiba3.
Abstract
Objective: Enuresis is a common pediatric problem for which, no unique therapy has been suggested. The conventional therapy is effective, but fails in some cases. So, many parents try complementary medicine. Therefore, this study attempted to find if rubbing coconut oil is effective on improving enuresis. Materials andEntities:
Keywords: Coconut oil; Enuresis; Herbal medicine; Mono symptomatic nocturnal enuresis; Traditional medicine
Year: 2022 PMID: 36249458 PMCID: PMC9516406 DOI: 10.22038/AJP.2022.20346
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Avicenna J Phytomed ISSN: 2228-7930
Figure 1Flow chart of clinical trial of cocoanut oil massage for mono symptomatic nocturnal enuresis
The mean frequency of enuresis before the intervention compared with the first, second, third, fourth, eighth weeks and one year after the intervention
| Paired differences | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 95% Confidence interval of the difference | ||||||
| Groups | Mean differences | SEM | Lower | Upper |
| |
| Coconut | Base-1st week | 3.673 | 0.304 | 3.062 | 4.284 | <.001 |
| Base-2nd week | 3.635 | 0.314 | 3.004 | 4.266 | <.001 | |
| Base-4th week | 3.808 | 0.314 | 3.177 | 4.439 | <.001 | |
| Base-8th week | 3.923 | 0.337 | 3.246 | 4.600 | <.001 | |
| Base-First year | 3.844 | 0.366 | 3.106 | 4.583 | <.001 | |
| Placebo | Base-1st week | 2.231 | 0.299 | 1.630 | 2.831 | <.001 |
| Base-2nd week | 1.962 | 0.292 | 1.376 | 2.547 | <.001 | |
| Base-4th week | 2.038 | 0.306 | 1.425 | 2.652 | <.001 | |
| Base-8th week | 2.135 | 0.319 | 1.494 | 2.775 | <.001 | |
| Base-First year | 2.083 | 0.322 | 1.436 | 2.731 | <.001 | |
Abbreviation: SEM, standard error of meanaPaired t test
Comparison of the mean frequency of enuresis in the coconut and placebo groups
| Groups (mean±SEM) | 95% Confidence interval of the difference | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Frequency of enuresis | Coconut | Placebo | Difference | Lower | Upper | p Valuea | |
| Baseline | 5.73±0.24 | 5.52±0.26 | 0.212 | -0.485 | 0.908 | 0.548 | |
| After 1 week | 2.06±0.31 | 3.29±0.35 | -1.231 | -2.164 | -0.297 | 0.010 | |
| After 2 weeks | 2.10±0.31 | 3.56±0.36 | -1.462 | -2.404 | -0.519 | 0.003 | |
| After 3 weeks | 1.92±0.32 | 3.29±0.37 | -1.365 | -2.332 | -0.398 | 0.006 | |
| After 4 weeks | 1.92±0.30 | 3.48±0.37 | -1.558 | -2.503 | -0.612 | 0.001 | |
| After 5 weeks | 1.90±0.32 | 3.42±0.37 | -1.519 | -2.491 | -0.547 | 0.003 | |
| After 6 weeks | 2.00±0.31 | 3.48±0.36 | -1.481 | -2.419 | -0.543 | 0.002 | |
| After 7 weeks | 1.87±0.32 | 3.44±0.36 | -1.577 | -2.540 | -0.614 | 0.002 | |
| After 8 weeks | 1.81±0.31 | 3.38±0.36 | -1.577 | -2.532 | -0.622 | 0.001 | |
| After one year | 1.82±0.34 | 3.46±0.37 | -1.636 | -2.650 | -0.622 | 0.002 | |
Abbreviation: SEM, standard error of meanaStudent's t test
Figure 2Pattern of improvement in the two groups by over time