A comparison between Zhishi Xiaopiwan and cisapride in treatment of functional dyspepsia

doi:10.3748/wjg.v4.i6.544

Advanced Search

BPG is committed to discovery and dissemination of knowledge

Home / Archive / Volume 4, Issue 6

This Article

Citation of this article

Corresponding Author of This Article

Article-Type of This Article

Open-Access Policy of This Article

Times Cited Counts in Google of This Article

Number of Hits and Downloads for This Article

Total Article Views (3812)

All Articles published online

The chart showing PDF series, HTML series, Tables (1-4) series.

Item

Count

PDF

381

HTML

3197

Tables (1-4)

234

Sum=3812

Dec 15, 1998 (publication date) through Dec 1, 2024

Times Cited of This Article

Times Cited (9)

Journal Information of This Article

Publication Name

World Journal of Gastroenterology

ISSN

1007-9327

Publisher of This Article

Baishideng Publishing Group Inc, 7041 Koll Center Parkway, Suite 160, Pleasanton, CA 94566, USA

Combined Traditional and Modern Medicine

World J Gastroenterol. Dec 15, 1998; 4(6): 544-547
Published online Dec 15, 1998. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v4.i6.544

Table 1 Comparision of the theraputic efficiency for symptoms relief

Symptoms	Group	Cases	NE^a (n)	E^a (n)	IE^a (n)	EF^a (%)
Epigastic pain	Herbal	16	1	10	5	68.75^b
	Cisapride	15	4	7	4	73.33
Bloating	Herbal	22	10	8	4	81.89^b
	Cisapride	18	13	3	2	88.89
Postprandial fullness	Herbal	19	9	8	2	89.47^b
	Cisapride	16	12	3	1	93.00
Eructation	Herbal	14	5	7	2	85.71^b
	Cisapride	17	10	4	3	82.35
Nausea	Herbal	6	3	3	0	100.00^b
	Cisapride	8	2	4	2	75.00

^aNE: Noticeable efficiency, E: Efficiency, IE: Inefficiency, ER: Efficiency rate;

^bP > 0.05 v Cisapride group.

Table 2 Comparision of symptoms complex index

Group	Cases	Before treatment	After treatment	Differential values
Herbal	27	2.28 ± 0.32	1.02 ± 0.60^a	1.26 ± 0.56^b
Cispride	24	2.19 ± 0.40	0.71 ± 0.55^a	1.49 ± 0.56

^aP < 0.001 v before treatment,

^bP > 0.05 v Cisapride group.

Table 3 Comparision of the clinical theraputic efficiency rate

Group	Cases	NE^a rate % (n)	E^a rate % (n)	IE^a rate % (n)
Herbal	27	25.93 (7)^b	55.56 (15)^b	18.51 (5)^b
Cisapride	24	37.50 (9)	50.00 (12)	12.50 (3)

^aNE: Noticeable efficiency, E: Efficiency, IE: Inefficiency;

^bP > 0.05 v Cisapride group.

Table 4 Comparision of gastric emptying time between before and after treatment

Group		Cases	GET50 (min)	GET (min)
Control		10	36.12 ± 10.22	87.07 ± 21.11
Herbal	Before treatment	22	51.63 ± 13.15^a	117.34 ± 23.29^a
	After treatment	22	45.62 ± 10.82^b^c	103.26 ± 22.19^b^c
Cisapride	Before treatment	17	54.66 ± 14.14^a	125.01 ± 24.47^a
	After treatment	17	40.95 ± 11.29^b^d	95.49 ± 22.31^b^d

^aP < 0.01 v control group,

^bP < 0.01 v before treatment,

^cP < 0.05 v control group,

^dP > 0.05 vs Control group.

Citation: Lin J, Cai G, Xu JY. A comparison between Zhishi Xiaopiwan and cisapride in treatment of functional dyspepsia. World J Gastroenterol 1998; 4(6): 544-547
URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/1007-9327/full/v4/i6/544.htm
DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3748/wjg.v4.i6.544