Copyright
©The Author(s) 2021.
World J Clin Cases. Oct 6, 2021; 9(28): 8349-8357
Published online Oct 6, 2021. doi: 10.12998/wjcc.v9.i28.8349
Published online Oct 6, 2021. doi: 10.12998/wjcc.v9.i28.8349
Table 1 Comparison of two groups of general data (n = 65)
Group | Age | Course of disease | Number of pregnancies | Pregnancy times (times) | BMI (kg/m2) |
Fenmatong group | 34.02 ± 3.89 | 3.45 ± 0.61 | 2.05 ± 0.36 | 1.32 ± 0.28 | 23.17 ± 1.24 |
Observation group | 33.74 ± 4.29 | 3.38 ± 0.57 | 1.98 ± 0.45 | 1.37 ± 0.26 | 23.06 ± 1.48 |
t | 0.390 | 0.676 | 0.979 | 1.055 | 0.459 |
P value | 0.697 | 0.500 | 0.329 | 0.293 | 0.647 |
Table 2 Comparison of curative effects between the two groups [n = 65, n (%)]
Group | Significant effect | Effective | Invalid | Total efficiency |
Fenmatong group | 32 (49.23) | 21 (32.31) | 12 (18.46) | 53 (81.54) |
Observation group | 47 (72.31) | 14 (21.54) | 4 (6.15) | 61 (93.85) |
χ2 | 4.561 | |||
P value | 0.033 |
Table 3 Comparison of traditional Chinese medicine syndrome scores between the two groups (mean ± SD, scores)
Group | n | Less menstruation | Delayed menstruation | The color is red and thick | Dizziness and palpitations | ||||
Before treatment | After treatment | Before treatment | After treatment | Before treatment | After treatment | Before treatment | After treatment | ||
Fenmatong group | 65 | 4.63 ± 1.14 | 2.03 ± 0.75 | 4.37 ± 1.23 | 1.89 ± 0.64 | 4.12 ± 1.05 | 1.95 ± 0.54 | 2.36 ± 0.54 | 1.32 ± 0.39 |
Observation group | 65 | 4.59 ± 1.07 | 1.27 ± 0.59 | 4.39 ± 1.21 | 1.04 ± 0.37 | 4.18 ± 0.97 | 1.12 ± 0.38 | 2.41 ± 0.47 | 0.87 ± 0.31 |
t | 0.206 | 6.421 | 0.093 | 9.270 | 0.338 | 10.134 | 0.563 | 7.282 | |
P value | 0.837 | 0.000 | 0.426 | 0.000 | 0.736 | 0.000 | 0.574 | 0.000 | |
Group | n | Sore waist and knees | Insomnia and dreaminess | Irritable | Pudendal dryness | ||||
Before treatment | After treatment | Before treatment | After treatment | Before treatment | After treatment | Before treatment | After treatment | ||
Fenmatong group | 65 | 2.27 ± 0.43 | 1.37 ± 0.37 | 1.97 ± 0.37 | 1.21 ± 0.29 | 2.08 ± 0.35 | 1.09 ± 0.28 | 1.86 ± 0.44 | 1.03 ± 0.32 |
Observation group | 65 | 2.31 ± 0.37 | 0.87 ± 0.49 | 2.03 ± 0.41 | 0.74 ± 0.23 | 2.11 ± 0.37 | 0.79 ± 0.25 | 1.81 ± 0.46 | 0.58 ± 0.27 |
t | 0.568 | 6.565 | 0.876 | 10.238 | 0.475 | 6.444 | 0.633 | 8.665 | |
P value | 0.571 | 0.000 | 0.383 | 0.000 | 0.636 | 0.000 | 0.528 | 0.000 |
Table 4 Comparison of uterine artery blood flow parameters between the two groups (n = 65, mean ± SD)
Group | PSV (cm/s) | EDV (cm/s) | RI | |||
Before treatment | After treatment | Before treatment | After treatment | Before treatment | After treatment | |
Fenmatong group | 30.85 ± 3.14 | 35.42 ± 3.36 | 5.24 ± 1.14 | 12.19 ± 1.45 | 0.87 ± 0.10 | 0.81 ± 0.08 |
Observation group | 30.41 ± 3.52 | 38.96 ± 3.11 | 5.30 ± 1.07 | 15.89 ± 1.57 | 0.86 ± 0.13 | 0.73 ± 0.10 |
t | 0.752 | 6.234 | 0.309 | 13.958 | 0.492 | 5.036 |
P value | 0.453 | 0.000 | 0.758 | 0.000 | 0.624 | 0.000 |
Table 5 Comparison of ultrasonic detection indexes of ovaries between the two groups (n = 65, mean ± SD)
Group | Ovarian diameter(cm) | Antral follicle count | ||
Before treatment | After treatment | Before treatment | After treatment | |
Fenmatong group | 2.56 ± 0.12 | 2.60 ± 0.10 | 3.08 ± 0.57 | 4.64 ± 0.51 |
Observation group | 2.57 ± 0.13 | 2.64 ± 0.14 | 3.12 ± 0.53 | 4.91 ± 0.43 |
t | 0.456 | 1.874 | 0.414 | 3.263 |
P value | 0.649 | 0.063 | 0.679 | 0.001 |
Table 6 Comparison of pictorial blood loss assessment chart scores between the two groups (n = 65, mean ± SD)
Group | PBAC score | |
Before treatment | After treatment | |
Fenmatong group | 18.14 ± 2.98 | 21.74 ± 3.06 |
Observation group | 17.95 ± 3.15 | 23.45 ± 2.77 |
t | 0.353 | 3.340 |
P value | 0.724 | 0.001 |
Table 7 Comparison of hormone levels between the two groups (n = 65)
Group | FSH (IU/L) | E2 (pg/mL) | AMH (ng/mL) | |||
Before treatment | After treatment | Before treatment | After treatment | Before treatment | After treatment | |
Fenmatong group | 18.21 ± 2.44 | 13.78 ± 2.06 | 25.38 ± 3.24 | 44.23 ± 4.05 | 0.22 ± 0.05 | 0.26 ± 0.07 |
Observation group | 18.14 ± 2.26 | 10.14 ± 1.57 | 24.89 ± 4.77 | 57.96 ± 5.17 | 0.21 ± 0.08 | 0.29 ± 0.09 |
t | 0.170 | 11.330 | 0.685 | 16.855 | 0.855 | 2.121 |
P value | 0.866 | 0.000 | 0.495 | 0.000 | 0.394 | 0.036 |
- Citation: Lin XM, Chen M, Wang QL, Ye XM, Chen HF. Clinical observation of Kuntai capsule combined with Fenmotong in treatment of decline of ovarian reserve function. World J Clin Cases 2021; 9(28): 8349-8357
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/2307-8960/full/v9/i28/8349.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.12998/wjcc.v9.i28.8349