论文部分内容阅读
目的:对比自拟方剂与西药联合使用治疗慢性咳嗽与只用西药治疗慢性咳嗽的临床治疗效果,为今后临床治疗慢性咳嗽的用药提供参考及新的思路。方法:用随机分组的方法,将2011年4月-2015年1月期间,在本院全科门诊就诊的64例患者,分两组,各32例。两组慢性咳嗽患者都加以西药治疗,实验组在对照组的基础上同时服用自拟方剂。21天后,通过观察两组慢性咳嗽病人的咳嗽程度和次数、胸闷和痰量以及咽痒情况等方面的状态,综合判断自拟方剂配合西药与单纯使用西药对慢性咳嗽的治疗效果。结果:实验组总有效率为87.5%,而对照组仅为65.62%,且差异具有统计学意义(p<0.05);实验组总愈显率为78.12%,而对照组仅为34.37%,p<0.05,差异具有统计学意义。结论:本研究结果表明,两种用药方式对慢性咳嗽的治疗效果有较为显著的差别,且P<0.05,具有显著性统计学差异。
OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical curative effect of self-made prescription and western medicine in the treatment of chronic cough with western medicine alone, and provide reference and new ideas for clinical treatment of chronic cough in the future. Methods: A randomized group of 64 patients in our general outpatient department from April 2011 to January 2015 were divided into two groups of 32 patients. Two groups of patients with chronic cough were treated with western medicine. The experimental group took self-prescription at the same time on the basis of the control group. After 21 days, by observing the state of cough and frequency, chest tightness and sputum volume and throat itch in two groups of chronic cough patients, the curative effect of self-made prescription combined with western medicine and western medicine alone on chronic cough was comprehensively evaluated. Results: The total effective rate was 87.5% in the experimental group and 65.62% in the control group, and the difference was statistically significant (p <0.05). The total effective rate in the experimental group was 78.12%, while that in the control group was only 34.37% <0.05, the difference was statistically significant. Conclusion: The results of this study show that there are significant differences between the two treatment methods in the treatment of chronic cough, and P <0.05, with significant statistical differences.