检索规则说明:AND代表“并且”;OR代表“或者”;NOT代表“不包含”;(注意必须大写,运算符两边需空一格)
检 索 范 例 :范例一: (K=图书馆学 OR K=情报学) AND A=范并思 范例二:J=计算机应用与软件 AND (U=C++ OR U=Basic) NOT M=Visual
作 者:何学军[1] 赵晓峰[1] 杨峰涛[1] 佘绍逸[1] 邓汪东[1]
机构地区:[1]汕头大学医学院第一附属医院泌尿外科,广东汕头515041
出 处:《中国中医药信息杂志》2010年第3期12-15,共4页Chinese Journal of Information on Traditional Chinese Medicine
摘 要:目的评价前列安栓治疗慢性前列腺炎(CP)的有效性及安全性。方法采用随机、双盲、阳性药对照临床研究方法,通过临床症状、体征、前列腺按摩液(EPS)检查,筛选出80例CP患者,随机分为试验组(60例)和对照组(20例)。试验组应用前列安栓,对照组用野菊花栓,观察2组患者临床症状、体征、前列腺按摩液(EPS)检查结果、美国国立卫生研究院慢性前列腺炎症状指数评分(NIH-CPSI)等疗效指标,及血、尿、大便常规和心电图、肝、肾功能、药物不良反应等安全性指标。结果治疗4周后,治疗组总有效率为74.14%,对照组总有效率为40.0%,治疗组优于对照组(P=0.006)。治疗组和对照组临床症状评分、NIH-CPSI评分比较,差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05,P<0.01)。2组治疗前后EPS中WBC计数比较虽有统计学意义(P<0.01),但其下降值差异却无统计学意义(P=0.121)。2组对药物的耐受性差异无统计学意义(P=0.269),无严重不良反应事件发生。结论前列安栓治疗CP有效、安全,患者依从性较好。Objective To evaluate the efficacy and safety of Prostant in the treatment of chronic prostatitis. Methods A randomized, double-blind, positive drug-controlled clinical trial method was applied in the study. Through clinical symptoms, signs and expressed prostate secretion (EPS) examination, 80 patients with prostatitis were recruited and randomized into a trial group (60 cases) and a control group (20 cases). The trial group was treated with Prostant, and the control group was treated with wild chrysanthemum suppository. After screening, treatment and follow-up, in the trial group and the control group, the observation on clinical efficacy and safety were evaluated, such as the clinical symptoms, signs, EPS examination, the national institute health-chronic prostatits symptom index (NIH-CPSI) and the blood routine, urine routine, stool routine, the function of liver and kindney, electrocardiograph examination and the side effects. Results After 4-week treatment, the total effective rate was 74.14% in the trial group and 40.0% in the control group, the efficacy of Prostant was superior to that of wild chrysanthemum suppository (P =0.006). There was significant difference in clinical symptoms and NIH-CPSI between pre-treatment and post-treatment in the trial group and the control group (P〈0.05, P〈0.01). Though there was remarkable difference between pre-treatment and post-treatment in WBC count in the EPS (P〈 0.01), no difference in decrease value of two groups (P =0.121). The tolerance to Prostant and wild chrysanthemum suppository showed no significant difference (P =0.269), and no serious side effects were recorded. Conclusion Prostant is effective and safe in treating chronic prostatitis and has good compliance.
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在链接到云南高校图书馆文献保障联盟下载...
云南高校图书馆联盟文献共享服务平台 版权所有©
您的IP:216.73.216.15