Observation on the effects of different partitioned moxibustion in treating ulcerative colitis
10.1007/s11726-016-0931-5
- VernacularTitle:不同隔物灸治疗溃疡性结肠炎临床观察
- Author:
Ling YANG
;
Jimeng ZHAO
;
Xin GUAN
;
Xiaomei WANG
;
Chen ZHAO
;
Huirong LIU
;
Luyi WU
;
Jun JI
;
Fang CHENG
;
Xiru LIU
;
Huangan WU
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords:
Moxibustion Therapy;
Indirect Moxibustion;
Colitis,Ulcerative;
Diarrhea;
Point,Tianshu (ST 25);
Point,Dachangshu (BL 25)
- From:
Journal of Acupuncture and Tuina Science
2016;14(4):231-241
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective: To observe the clinical effect and syndrome scores improvements of herbal cake-partitioned moxibustion (HPM) and ginger-partitioned moxibustion (GPM) in treating ulcerative colitis (UC). Methods:A total of 65 eligible cases were randomly divided into a HPM group (n=32) and a GPM group (n=33) according to their visiting order. Bilateral Tianshu (ST 25) and Dachangshu (BL 25) were selected for the HPM or the GPM treatment once daily, 12 d as a treatment course with a 3-day interval, 6 courses in all. The clinical effect, syndrome scale and Mayo scale were evaluated and compared between the two groups. Results:Of the 65 cases enrolled, 2 cases dropped out in the HPM group and 3 cases dropped out in the GPM group, 30 cases of each group finished the treatment courses. The total effective rate is 93.3% in HPM group and 86.7% in the GPM group, there was no statistically significant difference in the total effective rate between the two groups (P>0.05); there were statistically significant differences between the two groups in score evaluation of lasting time of abdominal pain and frequency of diarrhea, HPM is prior to GPM (P=0.032,P=0.044). There are no statistical significant differences between the two groups in scores evaluation of general symptom, three main symptoms, quality of life (QOL), frequency and severity of abdominal pain, times, and pattern of diarrhea (allP>0.05). There was a statistical significant difference in the improvement of Mayo score between the two groups, and HPM was superior to GPM (P=0.048). Conclusion:HPM and GPM are both promising ways to treat UC, and the total effect is quite similar. HPM is superior to GPM in the improvement of lasting time of abdominal pain and frequency of diarrhea, and also the Mayo score.
