Retrospective Study
Copyright ©The Author(s) 2024.
World J Diabetes. Jun 15, 2024; 15(6): 1234-1241
Published online Jun 15, 2024. doi: 10.4239/wjd.v15.i6.1234
Table 1 General data, n (%)
Factors
Observation group (n = 42)
Control group (n = 40)
t/χ2
P value
Sex0.0010.991
    Male22 (52.38)21 (52.50)
    Female20 (47.62)19 (47.50)
Age (yr)0.0020.965
    ≤ 6117 (40.48)16 (40.00)
    > 6125 (59.52)24 (60.00)
BMI (kg/m2)0.0010.983
    ≤ 2323 (54.76)22 (55.00)
    > 2319 (45.24)18 (45.00)
Mean course of disease (months)4.65 ± 0.854.82 ± 0.810.9260.357
Hypertension0.0010.991
    Yes20 (47.62)19 (47.50)
    No22 (52.38)21 (52.50)
Smoking history0.0020.965
    Yes25 (59.52)24 (60.00)
    No17 (40.48)16 (40.00)
Table 2 Comparison of therapeutic efficacy, n (%)
Therapeutic effect
Observation group (n = 42)
Control group (n = 40)
χ2
P value
Cure24 (57.14)14 (35.00)
Marked effectiveness10 (23.81)10 (25.00)--
Effectiveness6 (14.29)4 (10.00)--
Ineffectiveness2 (4.76)12 (30.00)--
Total effective rate40 (95.24)28 (70.00)9.2170.002
Table 3 Comparison of adverse reaction rates, n (%)
Adverse reactions
Observation group (n = 42)
Control group (n = 40)
χ2
P value
Conjunctival hyperemia2 (4.76)1 (2.50)--
Aggravated lacrimal gland injury1 (2.38)1 (2.50)--
Local inflammation01 (2.50)--
Corneal erosion2 (4.76)2 (5.00)--
Adverse reaction rate5 (11.90)5 (12.50)0.0070.934
Table 4 Comparison of treatment satisfaction
Satisfaction
Observation group (n = 42)
Control group (n = 40)
χ2
P value
Very satisfied30 (71.43)19 (47.50)--
Satisfied11 (26.19)10 (25.00)--
Dissatisfied1 (2.38)11 (27.50)--
Treatment satisfaction41 (97.62)29 (72.50)10.350.001