Clinical Observation Of Shugan Hezhong Decoction In Treating Liver Qi Stagnation And Spleen Deficiency Type Irritable Bowel Syndrome In Aspects Of Curative Effect,the Scores Of HAMA And HAMD₁₇

Objective:In order to understand why choose "Shugan Hezhong decoction" preferably,the following aspects including the magical usefulness of "he" method,wind medicine,the "qi of Wuxing" movement and the relationship of six meridians and viscera,combined with modern pharmacology research should be explored.At the same time,observing the curative effect of"Shugan Hezhong decoction" in the treatment of diarrhea type irritable bowel syndrome of liver qi stagnation and spleen deficiency type and the changes of the mood of anxiety and depression before and after treatment is used to provide the basis for clinical application.Methods:1.Collect 60 patients who were diagnosed as diarrhea type irritable bowel syndrome(liver qi stagnation and spleen deficiency syndrome)according to the diagnostic criteria of traditional Chinese and Western medicine from March 2020 to December 2020 in Nanjing Hospital of traditional Chinese Medicine.2.Then they were divided into two groups randomly,in which the treatment group was treated with,Shugan Hezhong decoction",200ml(1 bag)per time,drinking warmly before meals in the morning and evening,at the same time,the control group was treated with Live Combined B.Subtilis and E.Faecium Enteric-coated Capsules,500mg per time,twice one day.3.Finally the overall efficacy,the total symptom score,single symptom scores,HAMA and HAMD17 scores,the rate of recurrence were compared before and after treatment in order to evaluate the efficacy.Results:1.In the treatment group,28 cases were effective,the total effective rate was 93.33%;in the control group,22 cases were effective,the total effective rate was 73.33%,with continuous correction chi square test,P>0.05,there was no statistical significance.2.The total scores of the two groups before and after treatment were compared within the group,P<0.01,there was significant statistical significance.The total score of the two groups after treatment,P<0.05,there was significant statistical significance.3.The scores of single symptom in the two groups were compared within the group before and after treatment,P<0.01,there were significant statistical significance;The single symptom scores between the two groups after treatment,in terms of abdominal pain,abdominal distension,stool character,chest tightness and sighing,P<0.01,there were significant statistical significance;in terms of irritability,P<0.05,there was statistical significance;in terms of the stool frequency,appetite,fatigue,P>0.05,there was no statistical significance.4.The scores of HAMA and HAMD17 were compared within the group before and after treatment,P<0.01,there were significant statistical differences.The scores of HAMA and HAMD17 between the two groups after treatment,P<0.01,there were significant statistical differences.5.In aspects of the recurrence rate of the two groups,P<0.05,there was statistical significance.Conclusion:1.It could not be proved that the overall efficacy of the treatment group is better than that of the control group.However,there was a certain trend of better than the control group,and the sample size needs to be further expanded.2.The overall symptoms of the two groups were significantly relieved,but the treatment group was better than the control group in aspects of the improvement of overall symptoms.3.The scores of single symptom of the two groups that included the major and minor symptoms before and after treatment,were significantly relieved,but the treatment group was significantly better than the control group in relieving abdominal pain,abdominal distension,stool characteristics,chest tightness and sighing symptoms,and in relieving irritability,the treatment group was better than the control group.4.Anxiety and depression were alleviated in both groups,but the treatment group was significantly better than the control group in relieving anxiety and depression.5.The recurrence rate of the treatment group was lower than the control group.