Copyright
©The Author(s) 2020.
World J Clin Cases. Jan 6, 2020; 8(1): 46-53
Published online Jan 6, 2020. doi: 10.12998/wjcc.v8.i1.46
Published online Jan 6, 2020. doi: 10.12998/wjcc.v8.i1.46
Table 1 Comparing the two treatment groups for osteoarthritis
Item | Cure | Effective | Invalid | Total effective rate, % |
Eucommia-meloxicam group | 12 | 50 | 8 | 88.57 |
Meloxicam group | 7 | 51 | 12 | 82.85 |
X2 | 2.126 | |||
P value | 0.345 |
Table 2 Comparing the two treatment groups for osteonecrosis
Item | Effective | Invalid | Total effective rate, % |
Eucommia-meloxicam group | 67 | 8 | 89.33 |
Meloxicam group | 55 | 20 | 73.33 |
X2 | 6.323 | ||
P value | 0.012 |
Table 3 Comparison of the WOMAC score in the two groups of osteoarthritis patients
Item | Time | Pain | Stiff | Dysfunction |
Eucommia-meloxicam group | Before treatment | 13.32 ± 2.12 | 5.23 ± 1.14 | 37.23 ± 3.21 |
After treatment | 6.23 ± 1.23 | 2.38 ± 1.06 | 23.35 ± 2.31 | |
t | 21.266 | 5.544 | 69.158 | |
P | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | |
Meloxicam group | Before treatment | 14.42 ± 2.46 | 6.16±1.27 | 36.32 ± 4.17 |
After treatment | 3.69 ± 0.37 | 1.85 ± 0.26 | 18.37 ± 3.52 | |
t | 30.906 | 60.655 | 45.852 | |
P | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | |
Comparison of the two groups before treatment | t | 9.179 | 4.418 | 4.876 |
P | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | |
Comparison of the two groups after treatment | t | 21.551 | 0.74 | 11.508 |
P | 0.000 | 0.469 | 0.000 |
Table 4 Comparison of the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index score in the two groups of osteonecrosis
Item | Time | Pain | Stiff | Dysfunction |
Eucommia-meloxicam group | Before treatment | 16.59 ± 2.13 | 6.84 ± 0.36 | 36.63 ± 4.21 |
After treatment | 7.31 ± 3.14 | 1.69 ± 0.23 | 17.42 ± 3.58 | |
t | 27.141 | 53.830 | 52.858 | |
P | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | |
Meloxicam group | Before treatment | 18.31 ± 3.25 | 7.82 ± 0.26 | 35.86 ± 4.36 |
After treatment | 5.16 ± 1.59 | 2.42 ± 0.19 | 20.16 ± 3.45 | |
t | 25.426 | 57.876 | 29.644 | |
P | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | |
Comparison of the two groups before treatment | t | 8.643 | 18.094 | 0.751 |
P | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.453 | |
Comparison of the two groups after treatment | t | 11.006 | 12.114 | 12.379 |
P | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Table 5 Comparison of the two treatment groups for osteoarthritis
Item | BGP | IL-17 | S100A12 | SIP | Cysc | SCr | Hb | |
Eucommia and meloxicam group | Before treatment | 2.12 ± 0.12 | 152 ± 6.13 | 43 ± 3.2 | 0.23 ± 0.05 | 0.83 ± 0.3 | 46 ± 4.2 | 132 ± 8.9 |
After treatment | 1.88 ± 0.35 | 136.44 ± 4.58 | 36.37 ± 5.68 | 0.116 ± 0.05 | 1.12 ± 0.5 | 63 ± 3.6 | 113 ± 12.1 | |
t | 2.228 | 6.4 | 4.008 | 6.334 | 3.894 | 10.17 | 2.55 | |
P | 0.053 | 0.000 | 0.003 | 0.000 | 0.004 | 0.000 | 0.031 | |
Meloxicam group | Before treatment | 0.87 ± 0.21 | 125 ± 6.4 | 32 ± 6.3 | 0.11 ± 0.05 | 0.87 ± 0.43 | 53 ± 4.9 | 124 ± 3.6 |
After treatment | 0.64 ± 0.19 | 104 ± 6.4 | 18 ± 3.4 | 0.057 ± 0.01 | 1.46 ± 0.42 | 74 ± 5.7 | 104.3 ± 6.8 | |
t | 3.915 | 7.848 | 5.609 | 5.331 | 3.155 | 15.374 | 10.632 | |
P | 0.004 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.012 | 0.000 | 0.000 | |
Comparison of the two groups before treatment | t | 30.644 | 12.747 | 5.827 | 6.357 | 3.399 | 7.23 | 2.215 |
P | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.008 | 0.000 | 0.054 | |
Comparing the two groups after treatment | t | 35.845 | 14.523 | 8.409 | 3.174 | 2.774 | 4.97 | 2.456 |
P | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.011 | 0.022 | 0.000 | 0.036 |
Table 6 Comparison of the two treatment groups for osteonecrosis
Item | BGP | IL-17 | S100A12 | SIP | Cysc | SCr | Hb | |
Eucommia and meloxicam group | Before treatment | 1.95 ± 0.17 | 142 ± 11.56 | 65 ± 4.6 | 0.312 ± 0.06 | 2.45 ± 0.21 | 35 ± 5.3 | 145 ± 6.4 |
After treatment | 1.64 ± 0.15 | 125.13 ± 13.84 | 42.7 ± 4.8 | 0.124 ± 0.04 | 1.42 ± 0.17 | 57 ± 3.5 | 123 ± 4.6 | |
t | 2.419 | 1.432 | 7.924 | 9.185 | 8.175 | 12.513 | 6.713 | |
P | 0.039 | 0.186 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | |
Meloxicam group | Before treatment | 0.85 ± 0.13 | 123 ± 8.5 | 53 ± 4.7 | 0.132 ± 0.004 | 2.13 ± 0.11 | 68 ± 5.4 | 132 ± 5.4 |
After treatment | 0.58 ± 0.21 | 98.1 ± 12.9 | 16.38 ± 3.5 | 0.069 ± 0.005 | 1.69 ± 0.19 | 82 ± 3.5 | 105 ± 4.7 | |
t | 3.723 | 3.517 | 14.093 | 5.506 | 4.856 | 5.239 | 13.069 | |
P | 0.005 | 0.007 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.001 | 0.001 | 0.000 | |
Comparison of the two groups before treatment | t | 15.74 | 7.292 | 3.17 | 8.95 | 4.848 | 10.548 | 5.745 |
P | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.011 | 0.000 | 0.001 | 0.000 | 0.000 | |
Comparison of the two groups after treatment | t | 11.959 | 10.409 | 9.833 | 4.25 | 4.013 | 12.444 | 9.21 |
P | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.002 | 0.003 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
- Citation: Hu CX, Hu KY, Wang JF. Potential role of the compound Eucommia bone tonic granules in patients with osteoarthritis and osteonecrosis: A retrospective study. World J Clin Cases 2020; 8(1): 46-53
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/2307-8960/full/v8/i1/46.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.12998/wjcc.v8.i1.46