Clinical efficacy and safety of Guipi decoction combined with escitalopram oxalate tablets in patients with depression

Table 1 Comparison of general data between the two groups

Group	Gender	Age	BMI (kg/m2)	Course of disease
Control group (n = 45)	25/20	17.22 ± 5.13	24.22 ± 5.36	8.22 ± 1.23
Experimental group (n = 35)	19/16	17.26 ± 5.17	24.26 ± 5.14	8.29 ± 1.22
χ2/t value	0.010	0.034	0.038	0.253
P value	0.910	0.970	0.970	0.800

BMI: Body mass index.

Table 2 Comparison of traditional Chinese medicine syndrome scores

Group	Time	Easy waking and dreaminess	Palpitation	Forgetfulness	Pale face	Fatigue	Dizziness
Control group (n = 45)	Before treatment	5.08 ± 0.36	4.95 ± 0.22	4.63 ± 1.02	4.82 ± 1.02	4.40 ± 0.26	4.22 ± 0.29
	After 4 wk of treatment	2.46 ± 1.02	1.98 ± 0.11	2.07 ± 0.11	2.96 ± 0.33	1.86 ± 0.22	2.08 ± 0.33
t value		16.249	81.00	16.739	10.639	50.028	32.677
P value		< 0.001	< 0.001	< 0.001	< 0.001	< 0.001	< 0.001
Experimental group (n = 35)	Before treatment	5.09 ± 0.22	4.96 ± 0.18	4.64 ± 1.03	4.83 ± 1.06	4.42 ± 0.32	4.23 ± 0.19
	After 4 wk of treatment	1.22 ± 0.16a	1.03 ± 0.12a	1.32 ± 0.12a	1.56 ± 0.15a	0.92 ± 0.12a	1.08 ± 0.11a
t value		84.165	107.474	18.941	18.071	60.587	84.883
P value		< 0.001	< 0.001	< 0.001	< 0.001	< 0.001	< 0.001

^aP < 0.05 vs control group.

Table 3 Comparison of self-rating depression scale and Hamilton depression rating-24 scale scores

Group	Time	SDS scale score	HAMD-24 scale score
Control group (n = 45)	Before treatment	59.22 ± 5.23	20.22 ± 3.22
	After 4 wk of treatment	50.19 ± 5.16	10.88 ± 1.22
t value		8.245	18.196
P value		< 0.001	< 0.001
Experimental group (n = 35)	Before treatment	60.19 ± 5.16	20.26 ± 3.17
	After 4 wk of treatment	44.22 ± 5.03	6.95 ± 1.16
t value		13.111	23.327
P value		< 0.001	< 0.001

SDS: Self-rating depression scale; HAM-D: Hamilton depression rating scale.

Table 4 Comparison of clinical efficacy between the two groups

Group	Ineffective	Effective	Significantly effective	Effective rate (%)
Control group (n = 45)	10	17	18	35 (77.78)
Experimental group (n = 35)	1	14	20	34 (97.14)
χ2 value				6.230
P value				0.013

Table 5 Comparison of Pittsburgh sleep quality index scores

Group	Time	Sleepy quality	Sleep latency	Duration of sleep	Sleep disorders	Sleep efficiency	Daytime function
Control group (n = 45)	Before treatment	2.66 ± 0.26	2.72 ± 0.26	2.88 ± 0.26	1.38 ± 0.21	2.94 ± 0.12	2.65 ± 0.15
	After 4 wk of treatment	1.66 ± 0.21	1.34 ± 0.26	1.89 ± 0.29	1.66 ± 0.21	1.83 ± 0.24	0.98 ± 0.12
t value		20.071	25.177	17.051	6.325	27.750	58.319
P value		< 0.001	< 0.001	< 0.001	< 0.001	< 0.001	< 0.001
Experimental group (n = 35)	Before treatment	2.67 ± 0.29	2.73 ± 0.24	2.89 ± 0.28	1.39 ± 0.22	2.95 ± 0.16	2.69 ± 0.14
	After 4 wk of treatment	1.06 ± 0.11a	0.71 ± 0.11a	1.42 ± 0.21a	1.02 ± 0.12a	1.12 ± 0.11a	0.22 ± 0.03a
t value		30.709	45.266	24.848	8.735	55.759	102.060
P value		< 0.001	< 0.001	< 0.001	< 0.001	< 0.001	< 0.001

^aP < 0.05 vs control group.

Table 6 Comparison of incidence of adverse reactions

Group	Headache	Nausea	Fatigue	Total (%)
Control group (n = 45)	2	4	2	8 (17.78)
Experimental group (n = 35)	0	1	0	1 (2.86)
χ2 value				4.390
P value				0.036