Suppr超能文献

[针灸治疗慢性疲劳综合征患者的随机对照临床试验]

[Randomized controlled clinical trials of acupuncture and moxibustion treatment of chronic fatigue syndrome patients].

作者信息

Lu Chen, Yang Xiu-Juan, Hu Jie

出版信息

Zhen Ci Yan Jiu. 2014 Aug;39(4):313-7.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To observe the therapeutic effect of acupuncture and moxibustion interventions in the treatment of chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS).

METHODS

A total of 133 CFS patients were randomized into acupuncture group (47 cases), warm-needling group (44 cases) and non-acupoint group (42 cases). Manual acupuncture (MA) stimulation was applied to Baihui (GV 20), Danzhong (CV 17), Qihai (CV 6), Guanyuan (CV 4), bilateral Zusanli (ST 36), Hegu (LI 4), Taichong (LR 3) and Sanyinjiao (SP 6) for patients in the acupuncture group. For patients in the warm-needling group, moxa-heated needle was applied to Baihui (GV 20), Qihai (CV 6), Guanyuan (CV 4) and bilateral Zusanli (ST 36). Non-acupoints were located about 1-2 cm beside the Baihui (GV 20), Danzhong (CV 17), Qihai (CV 6), Guanyuan (CV 4), Zusanli (ST 36), Taichong (LR 3), Sanyinjiao (SP 6) and Hegu (LI 4). The treatment was given once daily for 20 days. The Chalder Fatigue Scale (14-item fatigue scale) was adopted to evaluate the changes of CFS before and after the treatment.

RESULTS

In comparison with pre-treatment, the scores of Chalder Fatigue Scale including physical and mental fatigue and total score were significantly decreased in both acupuncture and warm-needling groups (P < 0.05, P < 0.01), but not in the non-acupoint group (P > 0.05) except physical score (P < 0.05). The physical, mental and total scores of the acupuncture and warm-needling groups were significantly lower than those of the non-acupoint group (P < 0.05, P < 0.01), while the physical and total scores of the warm-needling group were markedly lower than those of the acupuncture group (P < 0.05). After the treatment, the CFS patients' satisfactory rates of the acupuncture, warm-needling and non-acupoint groups were 36.2% (17/47), 72.7% (32/44) and 35.7% (15/42), respectively.

CONCLUSION

Both MA and warm-needling interventions have a good therapeutic effect in the treatment of CFS patients, while the latter is obviously better.

摘要

目的

观察针灸干预治疗慢性疲劳综合征(CFS)的疗效。

方法

将133例CFS患者随机分为针刺组(47例)、温针组(44例)和非经穴组(42例)。针刺组患者采用手动针刺刺激百会(GV 20)、膻中(CV 17)、气海(CV 6)、关元(CV 4)、双侧足三里(ST 36)、合谷(LI 4)、太冲(LR 3)和三阴交(SP 6)。温针组患者采用温针灸刺激百会(GV 20)、气海(CV 6)、关元(CV 4)和双侧足三里(ST 36)。非经穴位于百会(GV 20)、膻中(CV 17)、气海(CV 6)、关元(CV 4)、足三里(ST 36)、太冲(LR 3)、三阴交(SP 6)和合谷(LI 4)旁1 - 2厘米处。治疗每日1次,共20天。采用Chalder疲劳量表(14项疲劳量表)评估治疗前后CFS的变化。

结果

与治疗前相比,针刺组和温针组的Chalder疲劳量表评分,包括身体和精神疲劳及总分均显著降低(P < 0.05,P < 0.01),而非经穴组除身体评分外无显著降低(P > 0.05)(P < 0.05)。针刺组和温针组的身体、精神和总分均显著低于非经穴组(P < 0.05,P < 0.01),而温针组的身体和总分显著低于针刺组(P < 0.。治疗后,针刺组、温针组和非经穴组CFS患者的满意率分别为36.2%(17/47)、72.7%(32/44)和35.7%(15/42)。

结论

针刺和温针干预对CFS患者均有良好的治疗效果,而后者明显更佳。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验