ABSTRACT
Objective: To compare the efficacy of moxibustion with different doses for knee osteoarthritis (KOA), and explore the correlation between moxibustion dose and clinical efficacy. Methods: Sixty-eight patients with KOA who met the inclusion criteria were randomly divided into a 20-minute moxibustion group and a 40-minute moxibustion group by the random number table method, with 34 cases in each group. Dubi (ST 35), Neixiyan (EX-LE 4) and Heding (EX-LE 2) were used for moxibustion in the two groups. Each treatment lasted 20 min or 40 min for each point in the 20-minute moxibustion group and 40-minute moxibustion group, separately; the treatment was given 3 times a week and lasted for 4 weeks. The visual analog scale (VAS), Western Ontario and McMaster University osteoarthritis index (WOMAC) and traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) symptom scores were evaluated before and after treatment to compare the efficacy between different moxibustion doses for KOA. Results: After treatment, the total effective rate was 87.5％ in the 40-minute moxibustion group, versus 70.0％ in the 20-minute moxibustion group, and the difference in the total effective rate between the two groups was statistically significant (P<0.05). After treatment, the VAS scores, the total WOMAC scores and the component scores of pain, stiffness and dysfunction, and the TCM symptom scores in both groups all changed significantly when compared with those before treatment (all P<0.05). After treatment, the between-group differences in the VAS score, the total WOMAC score and the component scores of pain and dysfunction, and the TCM symptom score were statistically significant (all P<0.05), while the difference in the stiffness score in WOMAC showed no statistical significance (P>0.05). Conclusion: Either 20-minute moxibustion or 40-minute moxibustion can relieve pain, improve stiffness, dysfunction, and TCM symptoms for KOA; and 40-minute moxibustion is better in relieving pain, improving dysfunction and TCM symptoms.
ABSTRACT
Objective:To observe the clinical effect of mild moxibustion for knee osteoarthritis (KOA) and to explore the role of mild moxibustion in relieving pain,reducing stiffness and improving joint dysfunction in patients with KOA.Methods:Eighty patients with KOA were randomly allocated into either a moxibustion group or a medication group by the random number table,with 40 cases in each group.The moxibustion group used mild moxibustion at Neixiyan (EX-LE 5),Dubi (ST 35),Xuehai (SP 10) and Liangqiu (ST 34),30 min each time,3 times a week;the medication group was given celecoxib capsule (celebrex),0.2 g each time,once a day.Both groups were treated for 4 weeks.The visual analog scale (VAS) and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities osteoarthritis index (WOMAC)scores were evaluated before and after treatment.The efficacy of the two groups was compared after treatment.Results:After treatment,the overall efficacy of the moxibustion group was significantly different from that of the medication group (P＜0.05).The VAS and WOMAC scores of the two groups were lower than those before treatment (both P＜0.01).The changes in the VAS and WOMAC scores after treatment in the moxibustion group were significantly different from those in the medication group (both P＜0.05).After treatment,in single item of WOMAC,the changes in pain and joint dysfunction in the moxibustion group were more statistically significant than those in the medication group (both P＜0.05).Conclusion:Mild moxibustion and oral celebrex can reduce the VAS and WOMAC scores of patients with KOA.Mild moxibustion is superior to oral celebrex in relieving pain and improving joint function.
ABSTRACT
Objective To investigate the reliability of a novel rating scale, unified multiple system atrophy rating scale, section Ⅰ(UMSARS-Ⅰ) in the evaluation of illness severity in patients with multiple system atrophy (MSA). Methods A retrospective analysis and a prospective follow-up study were conducted by using UMSARS-Ⅰ in 46 patients with MSA, and the Schwab and England scale was employed and illness severity was graded. The reliability, validity and sensitivity to change of UMSARS-Ⅰ in evaluating the illness severity of MSA were estimated. Results UMSARS-Ⅰ enjoyed high internal consistency (standard Crohnbach's ?=0.88) and sound content, criterion-related, construct and discriminant validity in the evaluation of illness severity of MSA, and a moderate sensiti-vity to change was found(effect size=0.61). Conclusion UMSARS-Ⅰ is a reliable and multidimensional semi-quantitative scale in the measurement of severity and progression of impairment in MSA.