【摘 要】
：
OBJECTIVE: Several studies reported that moxibustion therapy is effective for patients with low back pain (LBP),but those studies neglected dose of moxibustion and the optimal dose remained unclear.Do
【机 构】
：
Department of Orthopedics and Traumatology,General Hospital of Ningxia Medical University,Yinchuan 7
【出 处】
：
世界中医药学会联合会回医药专业委员会第一届学术年会
论文部分内容阅读
OBJECTIVE: Several studies reported that moxibustion therapy is effective for patients with low back pain (LBP),but those studies neglected dose of moxibustion and the optimal dose remained unclear.Dose of moxibustion takes an important place in obtaining good effects.Therefore,we report the protocol of a randomized controlled trial that evaluate the effects of moxibustion in the treatment of LBP and clarify the relationship between the dose and effects of moxibustion in the treatment of LBP.METHODS: Forty participants were randomly assigned to four groups.The small moxibustion dose group (SM),moderate moxibustion dose group (MM) and large moxibustion dose group (LM) respectively received 15 min,30 min,60 min treatments of suspended moxibustion on Guanyuan (CV 4).The conventional acupuncture group (CA) received acupuncture treatment as control group.The participants were treated continuously in 2 weeks treatment period for a total of 10 sessions,5 sessions were given per week.Participants were assessed weekly by blinded assessors,using the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) and Roland Morris Questionnaire (RMQ).RESULTS: The VAS and RMQ scores reduced in four groups during treatment.There were significant differences in VAS scores (P<0.01) and in RMQ scores (P<0.01) between before treatment and after 2-week of treatment in the LM group.After treatment,the LM group reported lower VAS score compared to the CA group,MM group and SM group,and the differences were statistically significant (P<0.05).CONCULSION: The large and moderate moxibustion dose treatments may be more effective for patients of low back pain.The treatment time was from 15 min to 60 min,efficacy of the moxibustion on Guanyuan (CV 4) gradually improved with increasing treatment time.
其他文献
吾师贾孟辉教授从回(中)西医结合角度通过对缺血性中风病因病机的深入研究,提出缺血性中风虽病因病机复杂:或饮食劳倦,或情志失调,或外邪侵袭,但四液、四性体质和禀性所致病理根源理论无疑是缺血性中风的发病和病理的关键,这是回医药脑病辩治之特色,有别于中医学辨证论治理论体系.吾师同时强调脑在人体中居于重要地位并提出缺血性中风病位在脑.故临床上通过通利脑经来治疗缺血性中风,取得了显著的临床效果。
目的：观察失荅剌知丸治疗椎-基底动脉供血不足的临床疗效.方法：将66例椎-基底动脉供血不足患者按照就诊顺序分为治疗组36例和对照组30例,治疗组口服失荅剌知丸胶囊并静脉滴注参芎注射液;对照组仅静脉滴注参芎注射液,两组均以7d为1疗程,连续治疗2个疗程后评定疗效.结果2个疗程后,治疗组有效率91.7％,对照组为72.7％(P＜0.05).治疗前后TCD 结果:用药后对照组和治疗组的血流速度均有不同程
李氏马刺针刀疗法是一种传承的回医特色疗法,具有鲜明的传统回医药文化特征.其传承脉络清晰可辨、渊源有自,论治理论宏富俱深、特色鲜明,手法操作规范简明、器具别样,以及疗效快捷、适应证广等.“马刺”是指一种较短的尖状物或者带刺的轮，连在骑马者的靴后根上，用来刺激马快跑的一种器具。而由李氏马刺针刀疗法传承下来的“马刺”器具来看，可以分为针状马刺、枪状马刺、锥状马刺。马刺针刀具有点刺放血作用，以及切割、剥离
目的:观察《回回药方》失荅剌知丸治疗缺血性中风恢复期患者的临床疗效.方法:将符合纳入标准的缺血性中风恢复期患者100例,随机分为治疗组和对照组各50例.2组均采用基础治疗,对照组加服银杏叶提取物片,治疗组加服失荅剌知丸,2组均14d为1疗程,1、2个疗程后观察其临床疗效和神经功能缺损评分.结果:①1疗程疗效比较,治疗组有效率66％,对照组为42％,2组有显著性差异(P＜0.05);2疗程疗效比较,
目的：观察回医药氧疗法治疗中风后抑郁患者的临床疗效.方法：将中风后抑郁病患者60例,随机分为治疗组30 例和对照组30例,治疗组给予回医药氧低流量吸入30分钟,日1次;对照组给予氟西汀片口服20mg,日1次;2组均10d为1疗程,2疗程后评定疗效.结果：两组患者治疗后汉密尔顿抑郁量表(HAMD)17项、改良爱丁堡+斯堪的那维亚神经功能缺损评分量表(MESSS)和日常生活能力的评定(ADL)各量表计
目的:观察回医汤甁耳诊疗法、面诊疗法联合拜糖平治疗2型糖尿病餐后血糖的疗效.方法:选取符合2型糖尿病诊断标准的90例患者,按入组先后顺序,随机分为治疗组和和对照组各45例.治疗组在运用拜糖平基础治疗的同时,采用回医汤甁耳诊疗法配合面诊疗法治疗,对照组仅采用拜糖平基础治疗,2组连续治疗2周为1疗程,检测治疗前、1疗程后2组FBG、2hPG和HbA1C水平.结果:两组治疗后FBG差异无统计学意义(P＞
目的：观察回医汤甁脉诊疗法配合手诊疗法治疗高脂血症的疗效.方法：将符合诊断的高脂血症患者60例,随机分为治疗组和对照组各30例,治疗组在基础治疗的同时,采用回医汤甁脉诊疗法配合手诊疗法治疗,1d1次,每次40min,连续治疗2周为1疗程,对照组采用基础治疗,疗程同治疗组,1疗程后观测2组治疗前后的血脂水平.结果：两组治疗前后的血脂比较均有明显差异(P＜0.01),两组治疗后血脂比较降TC、LDL-
目的:观察汤甁头诊疗法配合脚诊疗法防治高血压的疗效.方法:60例老年高血压患者,随机分成治疗组和对照组各30例,治疗组在基础治疗的同时采用汤甁头诊疗法配合脚诊疗法治疗,对照组单纯采用基础治疗,2组均治疗2周为1疗程后观测其疗效.结果:治疗组降压显效率66.7％,总有效率96.7％.对照组降压显效率53.3％,总有效率80.0％,治疗组总有效率优于对照组(P＜0.05).两组患者24 h平均收缩压及
目的：对回医理筋疗法治疗颈型颈椎病的临床疗效进行分析评价.方法：选取200例颈型颈椎病患者为研究对象,按照随机数字表分组法将其分为观察组100例和对照组100例,观察组患者接受回医理筋疗法+针灸治疗,对照组患者接受单纯的针灸治疗,两组患者接受一个疗程治疗后,比较观察组和对照组的临床疗效.结果 在治疗总有效率方面,观察组91％优于对照组78％,且差异明显,具有统计学意义(P＜0.05);在症状与功能
目的：观察回医理筋疗法治疗腰部筋伤的临床疗效.方法：选取200例损伤性腰痛患者为研究对象,随机分为治疗组100例和对照组100例,对照组接受“针灸+中频+神经阻滞”疗法,治疗组在对照组的基础上增加回医理筋疗法治疗,疗程结束后比较两组的VAS 评分和总有效率.结果：1个疗程后,治疗组VAS评分显著性优于对照组VAS评分(P＜0.05);治疗组总有效率较对照组总有效率显著性提高(P＜0.05).结论：