| ObjectiveAnorexia by pediatric massage therapy, observed in clinical studies using statistical methods and modern medicine, in order to discuss the treatment of infantile anorexia massage effect, and further research and poor diet influence the course of infantile anorexia.MethodsThis test uses clinical and randomized prospective design. Order by number of patient visits, random number table, the children were divided into groups and drug group massage, the massage group 33 cases,32 cases of drug group. Treatment:massage Group:Manipulation selection, Spleen by, fill the stomach, inner transportation gossip, rub doors, pushing four stripes, chiropractic. Drug group:oral Jianweixiaoshi oral (River Suji Chuan Pharmaceutical Co., Approval Number:ZhunziNo. Z20030094) consisting essentially of heterophylla, yam, malt, hawthorn. Dosage:Oral,3-6 years 110ml (1 branch), twice a day. 6-8 years 120mL,1 day,2 times. Course:6 days for a course of treatment. Continue to the next rest day course of treatment, two courses. OUTCOME MEASURES:Symptoms and signs of criterion-referenced "Chinese medicine clinical research guidelines (Trial)" issued by the State Drug Administration (2002) to develop Anorexia Ratings. All data were analyzed using statistical software, data are used to compare the mean X±SD that the measurement data normally distributed between the two groups using independent sample t test, paired sample t test was used to compare the group, grade and count data does not meet the normal distribution of the data line nonparametric test, count data using X2 test.ResultsMassage group and the drug group age of children is not normal, so the application of the rank sum test (two independent samples nonparametric test), Z is-1.739, P= 0.082> 0.05, no significant difference, comparable. Massage group and the drug group of children with gender, chi-square test, X2= 0.029, P= 0.865> 0.05, no significant difference between comparable. Massage group and the drug group of children with height, weight, with normal distribution and homogeneity of variance, using two independent sample t test, P> 0.05, no significant difference between comparable.In summary, children massage group and the drug group in terms of age, sex, height, weight and other general information, there was no significant difference between comparable.Massage group and the drug group of children with the course, chi-square test, X2= 1.210, P= 0.271>0.05, no significant difference between comparable. Massage group and the group of children with medication symptom score before treatment, using two independent sample t test, P= 0.100> 0.05, There was no significant difference between comparable.Massage therapy group and the drug group of children before the main symptom score, do not follow a normal distribution, using two independent samples nonparametric test, Z=-0.726, P= 0.468> 0.05, no significant difference between comparable.Massage therapy group and the drug group of children in front of the color point data were not normally distributed, using two independent samples nonparametric test, Z=-3.180, P= 0.001<0.05, significant difference, it is not comparable. Comparison of the results from the integration, the massage group of children looking worse.Massage therapy group and the drug group of children before the main symptom score, do not meet the normal distribution, use two independent samples nonparametric test, Z=-0.859, P= 0.390> 0.05, no significant difference between comparable.Massage therapy group and the drug group of children before the main symptom score, do not follow a normal distribution, using two independent samples nonparametric test, Z=-0.979, P= 0.328> 0.05, no significant difference between comparable.Massage therapy group and the drug group of children before the main symptom score, do not follow a normal distribution, using two., independent samples nonparametric test, Z=-0.385, P= 0.700> 0.05, no significant difference between comparable.As seen above, there was no difference between the massage group of children in the course of the medication group and most symptom score, comparable, but with significant differences in facial points, the two groups statistically, can be seen from Table 6, the massage group looking high points in the drug group, so after treatment between the two groups would not compare this indicator.Massage therapy in children before and after the group symptom score, the data were not normally distributed, the application of non-parametric test for paired samples,Z=-5.983, P= 0.000<0.01, significant difference, and visible from the mean symptom score decreased significantly after treatment.Massage therapy group before and after the main symptom score is not normal, application rank sum test, Z=-6.010, P= 0.000<0.01, statistically significant differences, indicating that after the massage therapy group was statistically significant improvement in major symptoms.Before and after the treatment of facial massage group integration is not normal, use the rank sum test, Z=-5.447a, P= 0.000<0.01 statistically significant differences, indicating that after the massage therapy group had significantly improved complexion.Before and after massage treatment group symptom score stool is not normal, use the rank sum test, Z=-4.323a, P= 0.000<0.01 statistically significant differences, indicating improved stool massage therapy group was statistically significant.Massage therapy group before and after the trouble anxious symptom score is not normal, use the rank sum test, Z=-5.103a, P= 0.000<0.01, statistically significant differences, indicating trouble anxious statistically significant improvement in symptoms after treatment massage group.Before and after massage treatment group abdominal distension symptom score is not normal, application rank sum test, Z=-2.828a, P= 0.005<0.01, statistically significant differences, indicating that after the massage therapy group was statistically significant improvement in symptoms, abdominal distension.Thus, both before and after the massage therapy group total score, or each symptom score, were statistically significant differences, indicating satisfactory effect of massage therapy.Drug group symptom scores before and after treatment, the data were not normally distributed, non-parametric test for paired samples application, Z=-4.958’, P= 0.000<0.01, significant difference, and after treatment, the mean symptom score was significantly reduced by the visible.3.323.3.2 Drug treatment group before and after the main symptoms (appetite, loss of appetite) integration (see Table 17)Pharmaceutical major symptom scores before and after treatment is not normal, Rank and face detection. Z=-4.839’, P= 0.000<0.01. Statistically significant differences, indicating that the main symptoms after the drug treatment group was statistically significant improvementAfter treatment with the drug is not normal complexion integration Application rank sum test, Z=-3.813’, P= 0.000<0.01, statistically significant differences, indicating that after the drug treatment group was statistically significant improvement in complexion. Before and after the drug treatment group symptom score stool is not normal, use the rank sum test, Z=-3.660’, P= 0.000<0.01, statistically significant differences. Improved stool legend drug group therapy was statistically significant.ConclusionChildren from each symptom scores after treatment including appetite, loss of points, stool symptom score, acute trouble symptom score, distension symptom score, these symptoms before and after treatment comparison between group, the rank sum test, P> 0.05, no statistical difference significance, are comparable. Description before massage therapy group and control group total score either, or each symptom score, were statistically significant differences, indicating whether it is through massage therapy or drug treatment in the control group were effective.Comparison of the results from the treatment of children between the massage group and the control group, the symptom score after treatment and loss of appetite, food intake points are significantly different, and the massage group improved better than the medication group, but the stool, trouble anxious, bloating the difference was not significant change, not statistically significant, this may be for the stool, urgency bother, influence of the presence of subjective factors determine bloating and other symptoms, but compared to the average of its integration, the massage group were less than the drug group, still Massage can explain the improvement of stool, trouble anxious, bloating and other secondary symptoms slightly better than the medication group.From the results of comparison of the two groups can be seen annoying massage can improve appetite and food intake in children, so that children increased food intake, has shipped spleen appetizers, spleen qi effect. At the same time, massage therapy Anorexia has the effect of faster, shorter duration characteristics. Results:The effect of food intake from symptom score and appetite, food intake points, the total efficiency than the control group. Regardless of integrals, or the use of TCM symptoms curative effect, a relatively efficient, it can obtain the treatment group improved appetite better than the control group. Visible, massage can significantly improve the small anorexia appetite, and is superior to medical therapy. |
PDF Full Text Request