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:邹芙容[1] 纪文君[1] 赵恵智 高霞[1] 王思佳[1] 管帅[1]
出 处:《航空航天医学杂志》2017年第4期483-484,共2页Journal of Aerospace medicine
摘 要:目的通过观察,比较压缩式雾化吸入与超声雾化吸入在急慢性咽炎疾病治疗中哪种方法疗效更好。方法将188例患者随机分甲、乙两组,使用压缩式雾化吸入的为甲组,使用超声雾化吸入的为乙组,比较两组急慢性咽炎治疗效果。结果甲组有效率为97.9%,乙组有效率为87.2%,差异有显著意义。结论急慢性咽炎雾化吸入治疗以选择压缩式雾化吸入为宜。Objective To observe and compare the efficacy of compression atomization inhalation and ultrasonic atomization inhalation in the treatment of acute and chronic pharyngitis diseases. Methods 188 patients were randomly divided into two groups A and B, the use of compressed atomization inhalation for group A, using ultrasonic atomizing inhalation in group B, two groups of acute and chronic laryngitis curative effect. Results The effective rate was 97.9%, B group was 87.2%, the difference was significant. Conclusions Aerosol inhalation therapy for acute and chronic pharyngitis should be selected by compression atomization inhalation.
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:216.73.216.49