| Background and Objective:This study selects chronic fatigue syndrome(CFS)as the research medium to observe and objectively compare the treatment of CFS with Sun’s abdominal acupuncture combined with electric acupuncture and Sun’s abdominal acupuncture.It explores whether there is a difference in the efficacy of Sun’s abdominal acupuncture combined with electric acupuncture and Sun’s abdominal acupuncture in the treatment of CFS,and studies its related mechanisms,providing new ideas and methods for the clinical treatment of CFS.Method:62 subjects were randomly divided into an experimental group and a control group,with 31 participants in each group.The researchers and data analysts were blinded.The control group received Sun’s abdominal acupuncture treatment and health education,while the experimental group received Sun’s abdominal acupuncture combined with electric neck acupuncture treatment and health education,once every other day,for a total of 7 times as a course of treatment.The treatment lasted for 2 consecutive courses,and the fatigue scale(FS14),self rating anxiety scale(SAS),and The MOS item short from health survey(SF-36)and the Traditional Chinese Medicine Syndrome Score Scale(TCMSSS)were evaluated.Sun’s abdominal needle takes the first and eighth areas of the abdomen.The tip of the needle in the first area of the abdomen should be stabbed at a 15° angle towards the navel,with three parallel needles.Light techniques should be used to supplement and reduce the pain.The needle in the eighth area of the abdomen should be directly stabbed at 0.5 to 1 inch,but no needle should be used.Take bilateral wind pools and connect Yiming with electroacupuncture for neck acupuncture.The wind pool slants 0.8 to 1.2 inches towards the tip of the nose,and the Yi Ming stabs 0.5 to 1 inch.The relevant data was statistically analyzed using SPSS software to compare the differences in efficacy and safety between two treatment regimens,and to evaluate their impact on patients’ quality of life and emotional state.Result:1.General information comparison.Before treatment,there were no statistically significant differences in age,gender composition ratio,BMI,course of disease,educational level,FS-14,SAS,SF-36,and TCMSSS scores between the two groups of patients(P>0.05),indicating comparability between the two groups of patients.2.Comparison of clinical total effective rates.There was a statistically significant difference in the clinical response rate between the two groups of subjects at the end of the treatment course and follow-up(P<0.05).The total clinical effective rates of the experimental group after treatment and follow-up were 96.77%and 100%,respectively;The total clinical effective rates of the control group after treatment and follow-up were 74.2%and 80.6%,respectively.Both treatments are effective for CFS patients,but the experimental group has better efficacy.3.Comparison of SF-36 scores.After treatment,both groups of patients showed a significant increase compared to before treatment(P<0.05),with a statistically significant difference.When comparing the two groups of patients at two time points after treatment and follow-up,it was found that the SF-36 score of the experimental group was higher than that of the control group(P<0.05),and the difference was statistically significant.Both treatments can improve the health status of CFS patients,but the experimental group has better efficacy.4.Comparison of FS-14 scores.After treatment,both groups of patients showed a significant decrease compared to before treatment(P<0.05),with a statistically significant difference.Both groups of patients showed a significant decrease in follow-up compared to after treatment(P<0.05),with a statistically significant difference.When comparing the two groups of patients at two time points after treatment and follow-up,it was found that the FS-14 score of the experimental group was lower than that of the control group(P<0.05),and the difference was statistically significant.Both treatments can improve fatigue in CFS patients and have long-term efficacy,but the experimental group has better efficacy.5.SAS score comparison.After treatment,both groups of patients showed a significant decrease compared to before treatment(P<0.05),with a statistically significant difference.Both groups of patients showed a significant decrease in follow-up compared to after treatment(P<0.05),with a statistically significant difference.The difference in SAS scores between the control group before treatment,after treatment,and follow-up was statistically significant(P<0.05)through the square difference test;Inter group comparison:After treatment,the comparison between the two groups showed P=0.176>0.05,and follow-up comparison showed P=0.00<0.05.Both treatments can improve anxiety in CFS patients and have long-term efficacy,but the experimental group has better long-term efficacy.6.Comparison of TCMSSS scores.The experimental group patients showed a significant decrease after treatment compared to before treatment(P<0.05),and the difference was statistically significant.The follow-up of patients in the experimental group showed a significant decrease compared to after treatment(P<0.05).and the difference was statistically significant.The control group patients showed a significant decrease after treatment compared to before treatment(P<0.05).and the difference was statistically significant.There was no significant difference between the control group patients during follow-up and after treatment(P>0.05).When comparing the two groups of patients at two time points after treatment and follow-up,it was found that the TCMSSS score of the experimental group was lower than that of the control group(P<0.05),and the difference was statistically significant.Both treatments can improve the liver depression and spleen deficiency syndrome in CFS patients,but only the experimental group has long-term efficacy,and the experimental group has better efficacy than the control group.7.Safety evaluation.Both groups of patients did not experience serious adverse reactions,so it is considered that both treatment plans are safe.Conclusion:(1)The combination of electric neck acupuncture with Sun’s abdominal acupuncture and Sun’s abdominal acupuncture is effective in the treatment of CFS,both are safe and reliable,can improve patient health and fatigue,and has long-term efficacy.However,the combination of electric neck acupuncture and Sun’s abdominal acupuncture has a better effect.(2)The combination of electroacupuncture with Sun’s abdominal acupuncture and Sun’s abdominal acupuncture can improve patients’ anxiety,liver depression,and spleen deficiency symptoms.There is no difference in short-term efficacy,but the combination of electroacupuncture with Sun’s abdominal acupuncture has better long-term efficacy.The combination of electric neck acupuncture and Sun’s abdominal acupuncture can significantly improve the health status of CFS patients,alleviate their fatigue,anxiety,liver depression and spleen deficiency symptoms,and have long-term therapeutic effects.The combination of the two acupuncture methods is reliable and worthy of further clinical and basic research for promotion. |
PDF Full Text Request