Journal of Traditional Chinese Medicine ›› 2023, Vol. 43 ›› Issue (4): 809-814.DOI: 10.19852/j.cnki.jtcm.20230428.002
Previous Articles Next Articles
Effectiveness of acupoint application of Xiaozhong Zhitong Tie on diarrhea in patients: a retrospective cohort study in China
SHENG Song1, ZHANG Yanhong1, GAO Hongyang1, MA Hangkun1, HUANG Ye1, LI Qingna2, GAO Rui2(
), XU Fengqin3()
- 1 Emergency Department, Xiyuan Hospital, China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences, Beijing 100091, China
2 Institute of Clinical Pharmacology, Xiyuan Hospital, China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences, Beijing 100091, China
3 Institute of Geriatrics, Xiyuan Hospital, China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences, Beijing 100091, China
-
Received:2022-01-15Accepted:2022-07-08Online:2023-08-15Published:2023-04-28 -
Contact:Prof. GAO Rui, Institute of Clinical Pharmacology, Xiyuan Hospital, China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences, Beijing 100091, China. ruigao@126.com;
Prof. XU Fengqin, Institute of Geriatrics, Xiyuan Hospital, China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences, Beijing 100091, China. Dr.xufengqin@outlook.com. Telephone: +86-13911097765; +86-18800021979 -
Supported by:Major Science and Technology Innovation Project of China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences: Research on the Key Techniques of Clinical Evaluation of New Chinese Medicine under the System of Three-in-one Combination Evidence Review(CI2021A04701)
Cite this article
SHENG Song, ZHANG Yanhong, GAO Hongyang, MA Hangkun, HUANG Ye, LI Qingna, GAO Rui, XU Fengqin. Effectiveness of acupoint application of Xiaozhong Zhitong Tie on diarrhea in patients: a retrospective cohort study in China[J]. Journal of Traditional Chinese Medicine, 2023, 43(4): 809-814.
share this article
Figure 1 Flowchart of the study population
Figure 1 Flowchart of the study population
Table 1 Baseline characteristics of the study population
| Variable | Control group (n = 291) | Treatment group (n = 1989) | P value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age (yeas) | 8.5±15.2 | 6.7±12.5 | 0.765 |
| Duration of diarrhea (d) | 0.6±2.1 | 1.6±9.2 | <0.001 |
| Region [n (%)] | <0.001 | ||
| North | 5 (1.72) | 584 (29.36) | |
| South | 283 (97.25) | 1314 (66.06) | |
| Data missing | 3 (1.03) | 91 (4.58) | |
| Sex [n (%)] | 0.673 | ||
| Male | 164 (56.36) | 1147 (57.67) | |
| Female | 127 (43.64) | 842 (42.33) | |
| Use of oral Chinese Medicine decoction [n (%)] | <0.001 | ||
| No | 270 (92.78) | 1988 (99.95) | |
| Yes | 21 (7.22) | 1 (0.05) | |
| Use of Western Medicine [n (%)] | <0.001 | ||
| No | 291 (100.00) | 1902 (95.63) | |
| Yes | 0 (0.00) | 87 (4.37) | |
| Frequency of diarrhea (times/d) [n (%)] | <0.001 | ||
| <2 | 37 (12.71) | 407 (20.46) | |
| ≥2 | 118 (40.55) | 885 (44.49) | |
| Data missing | 136 (46.74) | 697 (35.04) | |
| Loose stool [n (%)] | <0.001 | ||
| No | 213 (73.20) | 1735 (87.23) | |
| Yes | 78 (26.80) | 254 (12.77) | |
| Watery stool [n (%)] | <0.001 | ||
| No | 212 (72.85) | 1813 (91.15) | |
| Yes | 79 (27.15) | 176 (8.85) | |
| Mucous or bloody stool [n (%)] | 0.025 | ||
| No | 263 (90.38) | 1867 (93.87) | |
| Yes | 28 (9.62) | 122 (6.13) | |
| Acid odor stool smell [n (%)] | 0.106 | ||
| No | 266 (91.41) | 1754 (88.19) | |
| Yes | 25 (8.59) | 235 (11.81) | |
| Unobvious stool smell [n (%)] | <0.001 | ||
| No | 251 (86.25) | 1925 (96.78) | |
| Yes | 40 (13.75) | 64 (3.22) | |
Table 1 Baseline characteristics of the study population
| Variable | Control group (n = 291) | Treatment group (n = 1989) | P value |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age (yeas) | 8.5±15.2 | 6.7±12.5 | 0.765 |
| Duration of diarrhea (d) | 0.6±2.1 | 1.6±9.2 | <0.001 |
| Region [n (%)] | <0.001 | ||
| North | 5 (1.72) | 584 (29.36) | |
| South | 283 (97.25) | 1314 (66.06) | |
| Data missing | 3 (1.03) | 91 (4.58) | |
| Sex [n (%)] | 0.673 | ||
| Male | 164 (56.36) | 1147 (57.67) | |
| Female | 127 (43.64) | 842 (42.33) | |
| Use of oral Chinese Medicine decoction [n (%)] | <0.001 | ||
| No | 270 (92.78) | 1988 (99.95) | |
| Yes | 21 (7.22) | 1 (0.05) | |
| Use of Western Medicine [n (%)] | <0.001 | ||
| No | 291 (100.00) | 1902 (95.63) | |
| Yes | 0 (0.00) | 87 (4.37) | |
| Frequency of diarrhea (times/d) [n (%)] | <0.001 | ||
| <2 | 37 (12.71) | 407 (20.46) | |
| ≥2 | 118 (40.55) | 885 (44.49) | |
| Data missing | 136 (46.74) | 697 (35.04) | |
| Loose stool [n (%)] | <0.001 | ||
| No | 213 (73.20) | 1735 (87.23) | |
| Yes | 78 (26.80) | 254 (12.77) | |
| Watery stool [n (%)] | <0.001 | ||
| No | 212 (72.85) | 1813 (91.15) | |
| Yes | 79 (27.15) | 176 (8.85) | |
| Mucous or bloody stool [n (%)] | 0.025 | ||
| No | 263 (90.38) | 1867 (93.87) | |
| Yes | 28 (9.62) | 122 (6.13) | |
| Acid odor stool smell [n (%)] | 0.106 | ||
| No | 266 (91.41) | 1754 (88.19) | |
| Yes | 25 (8.59) | 235 (11.81) | |
| Unobvious stool smell [n (%)] | <0.001 | ||
| No | 251 (86.25) | 1925 (96.78) | |
| Yes | 40 (13.75) | 64 (3.22) | |
Table 2 Results of multivariate logistic regression
| Item | Unadjusted | Adjusted Ⅰ | Adjusted Ⅱ | Fully-Adjusted | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control group | Treatment group | Control group | Treatment group | Control group | Treatment group | Control group | Treatment group | ||||||
| Recovery on the 3rd day | Reference | 1.32 (0.98, 1.77) 0.063 | Reference | 1.29 (0.96, 1.74) 0.088 | Reference | 1.29 (0.94, 1.75) 0.109 | Reference | 1.39 (0.99, 1.95) 0.056 | |||||
| Recovery on the 7th day | Reference | 1.39 (1.02, 1.88) 0.036 | Reference | 1.36 (1.00, 1.85) 0.047 | Reference | 1.31 (0.95, 1.79) 0.098 | Reference | 1.37 (0.98, 1.92) 0.067 | |||||
| Recovery on the 14th day | Reference | 1.50 (1.09, 2.06) 0.013 | Reference | 1.48 (1.07, 2.03) 0.017 | Reference | 1.58 (1.15, 2.19) 0.005 | Reference | 1.57 (1.11, 2.23) 0.011 | |||||
| Recovery on the 28th day | Reference | 1.90 (1.35, 2.69) <0.001 | Reference | 1.88 (1.33, 2.66) <0.001 | Reference | 2.03 (1.43, 2.88) <0.001 | Reference | 2.01 (1.42, 2.85) <0.001 | |||||
Table 2 Results of multivariate logistic regression
| Item | Unadjusted | Adjusted Ⅰ | Adjusted Ⅱ | Fully-Adjusted | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control group | Treatment group | Control group | Treatment group | Control group | Treatment group | Control group | Treatment group | ||||||
| Recovery on the 3rd day | Reference | 1.32 (0.98, 1.77) 0.063 | Reference | 1.29 (0.96, 1.74) 0.088 | Reference | 1.29 (0.94, 1.75) 0.109 | Reference | 1.39 (0.99, 1.95) 0.056 | |||||
| Recovery on the 7th day | Reference | 1.39 (1.02, 1.88) 0.036 | Reference | 1.36 (1.00, 1.85) 0.047 | Reference | 1.31 (0.95, 1.79) 0.098 | Reference | 1.37 (0.98, 1.92) 0.067 | |||||
| Recovery on the 14th day | Reference | 1.50 (1.09, 2.06) 0.013 | Reference | 1.48 (1.07, 2.03) 0.017 | Reference | 1.58 (1.15, 2.19) 0.005 | Reference | 1.57 (1.11, 2.23) 0.011 | |||||
| Recovery on the 28th day | Reference | 1.90 (1.35, 2.69) <0.001 | Reference | 1.88 (1.33, 2.66) <0.001 | Reference | 2.03 (1.43, 2.88) <0.001 | Reference | 2.01 (1.42, 2.85) <0.001 | |||||
Table 3 Results of four propensity score matching based sensitivity analyses
| Item | Univariate | CAPS | IPTW | SMRW | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control group | Treatment group | Control group | Treatment group | Control group | Treatment group | Control group | Treatment group | ||||||
| n (%) | 184 (20.00) | 736 (80.00) | 184 (20.00) | 736 (80.00) | 291 (12.76) | 1989 (87.24) | 291 (12.76) | 1989 (87.24) | |||||
| Recovery on the 3rd day | Reference | 1.83 (1.25, 2.67) 0.002 | Reference | 1.83 (1.25, 2.68) 0.002 | Reference | 1.47 (1.20, 1.79) <0.001 | Reference | 1.49 (1.22, 1.83) <0.001 | |||||
| Recovery on the 7th day | Reference | 1.79 (1.21, 2.65) 0.004 | Reference | 1.79 (1.21, 2.66) 0.004 | Reference | 1.35 (1.12, 1.63) 0.001 | Reference | 1.36 (1.11, 1.67) 0.003 | |||||
| Recovery on the 14th day | Reference | 2.12 (1.41, 3.20) <0.001 | Reference | 2.13 (1.42, 3.21) <0.001 | Reference | 1.55 (1.28, 1.86) <0.001 | Reference | 1.57 (1.28, 1.92) <0.001 | |||||
| Recovery on the 28th day | Reference | 2.38 (1.53, 3.73) <0.001 | Reference | 2.38 (1.66, 2.45) <0.001 | Reference | 2.01 (1.62, 2.40) <0.001 | Reference | 2.05 (1.65, 2.53) <0.001 | |||||
Table 3 Results of four propensity score matching based sensitivity analyses
| Item | Univariate | CAPS | IPTW | SMRW | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Control group | Treatment group | Control group | Treatment group | Control group | Treatment group | Control group | Treatment group | ||||||
| n (%) | 184 (20.00) | 736 (80.00) | 184 (20.00) | 736 (80.00) | 291 (12.76) | 1989 (87.24) | 291 (12.76) | 1989 (87.24) | |||||
| Recovery on the 3rd day | Reference | 1.83 (1.25, 2.67) 0.002 | Reference | 1.83 (1.25, 2.68) 0.002 | Reference | 1.47 (1.20, 1.79) <0.001 | Reference | 1.49 (1.22, 1.83) <0.001 | |||||
| Recovery on the 7th day | Reference | 1.79 (1.21, 2.65) 0.004 | Reference | 1.79 (1.21, 2.66) 0.004 | Reference | 1.35 (1.12, 1.63) 0.001 | Reference | 1.36 (1.11, 1.67) 0.003 | |||||
| Recovery on the 14th day | Reference | 2.12 (1.41, 3.20) <0.001 | Reference | 2.13 (1.42, 3.21) <0.001 | Reference | 1.55 (1.28, 1.86) <0.001 | Reference | 1.57 (1.28, 1.92) <0.001 | |||||
| Recovery on the 28th day | Reference | 2.38 (1.53, 3.73) <0.001 | Reference | 2.38 (1.66, 2.45) <0.001 | Reference | 2.01 (1.62, 2.40) <0.001 | Reference | 2.05 (1.65, 2.53) <0.001 | |||||
| 1. | Li R, Li QN, Zi MJ, et al. Investigation and analysis on the clinical application of Traditional Chinese Medicine accupoint application therapy at the grassroots level. Hunan Zhong Yi Za Zhi 2021; 37: 138-40+178. |
| 2. | Li R, Li QN, Li CF, et al. Influence of acupoint application on clinical use of antibiotics: a real world study of 1.23 million primary clinic patients. Zhong Guo Zhen Jiu 2022; 42: 241-9. |
| 3. | Zhang X, Jia CS, Shi J, et al. Meta analysis of effectiveness of acupoint application therapy for infantile diarrhea. Zhen Ci Yan Jiu 2013; 38: 319-23. |
| 4. |
Franklin JM, Pawar A, Martin D, et al. Nonrandomized real-world evidence to support regulatory decision making: process for a randomized trial replication project. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2020; 107: 817-26.
DOI PMID |
| 5. |
Vetter C, Devore EE, Wegrzyn LR, et al. Association between rotating night shift work and risk of coronary heart disease among women. JAMA 2016; 315: 1726-34.
DOI PMID |
| 6. |
Von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, et al. The strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Int J Surg 2014; 12: 1495-9.
DOI PMID |
| 7. |
Talbot D, Massamba VK. A descriptive review of variable selection methods in four epidemiologic journals: there is still room for improvement. Eur J Epidemiol 2019; 34: 725-30.
DOI PMID |
| 8. |
Weng HY, Hsueh YH, Messam LL, et al. Methods of covariate selection: directed acyclic graphs and the change-in-estimate procedure. Am J Epidemiol 2009; 169: 1182-90.
DOI URL |
| 9. |
Moreno G, Rodríguez A, Reyes LF, et al. Corticosteroid treatment in critically ill patients with severe influenza pneumonia: a propensity score matching study. Intensive Care Med 2018; 44: 1470-82.
DOI PMID |
| 10. |
Zhao M, Wang X, He M, et al. Homocysteine and stroke risk: modifying effect of methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase C677T polymorphism and folic acid intervention. Stroke 2017; 48: 1183-90.
DOI PMID |
| 11. |
Kane LT, Fang T, Galetta MS, et al. Propensity score matching: a statistical method. Clin Spine Surg 2020; 33: 120-2.
DOI PMID |
| 12. |
Takahara M, Iida O, Tazaki J, et al. Clinical features and prognosis of patients with and without diabetes mellitus undergoing endovascular aortic aneurysm repair. BMC Endocr Disord 2022; 22: 92.
DOI PMID |
| 13. | Yao XI, Wang X, Speicher PJ, et al. Reporting and guidelines in propensity score analysis: a systematic review of cancer and cancer surgical studies. J Natl Cancer Inst 2017; 109: djw323. |
| 14. | Geleris J, Sun Y, Platt J, et al. Observational study of hydroxychloroquine in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. N Engl J Med 2020; 382: 2411-8. |
| 15. |
Prin M, Kaizer A, Cardenas J, et al. Tracheostomy practices for mechanically ventilated patients in Malawi. World J Surg 2021; 45: 2638-42.
DOI PMID |
| 16. |
Localio AR, Stack CB, Griswold ME. Sensitivity analysis for unmeasured confounding: E-values for observational studies. Ann Intern Med 2017; 167: 285-6.
DOI URL |
| 17. |
VanderWeele TJ, Ding P. Sensitivity analysis in observational research: introducing the E-value. Ann Intern Med 2017; 167: 268-74.
DOI PMID |
| 18. | Kang SH, Yang Y, Yao A, et al. Efficacy observation on pediatric persistent diarrhea treated with acupoint application and zinc gluconate. Shi Jie Zhong Xi Yi Jie He Za Zhi 2019; 14: 1295-8. |
| 19. |
Vargas-Santos AB, Peloquin CE, Zhang Y, et al. Association of chronic kidney disease with allopurinol use in gout treatment. JAMA Intern Med 2018; 178: 1526-33.
DOI PMID |
| 20. | Sheng S, Huang Y, Gao HY, et al. An analysis of the association and threshold effect between treatment course of acupoint application and diarrheal recovery in community hospitals nationwide: a multicenter retrospective cohort study. Zhong Guo Zhong Xi Yi Jie He Xiao Hua Za Zhi 2021; 29: 757-61. |
| 21. |
Trinquart L, Erlinger AL, Petersen JM, et al. Applying the E value to assess the robustness of epidemiologic fields of inquiry to unmeasured confounding. Am J Epidemiol 2019; 188: 1174-80.
DOI PMID |
| [1] | SHEN Mengxia, SHANG Wenfang, WU Jiangxia, YU Zelin, XUAN Lihua. Efficacy and safety of acupoint application for allergic rhinitis: a systematic review and Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials [J]. Journal of Traditional Chinese Medicine, 2022, 42(6): 858-868. |
| [2] | LIU Wei, XIONG Xingjiang, QIAO Lumin, CHEN Yuyi, LI Yixuan, SU Xing, CHU Fuyong, LIU Hongxu. Acupoint application therapies for essential hypertension: a systematic review and Meta-analysis [J]. Journal of Traditional Chinese Medicine, 2022, 42(2): 159-166. |
| [3] | Abdelouafi Benmouloud. In vivo anti-diarrheal activity of jujube honey on castor oil-induced diarrhea in mice [J]. Journal of Traditional Chinese Medicine, 2021, 41(6): 900-908. |
| [4] | Zhang Xiaowei, Guo Huijun, Li Zhen, Xu Liran, Zhang Aiping, Ji Aiying. Effectiveness of Xielikang capsules in treating HIV-related diarrhea by increasing the plasma concentration of interleukin-17 [J]. Journal of Traditional Chinese Medicine, 2017, 37(05): 616-620. |
| [5] | Yang Ling, Lu Yuan, Zhang Haifeng, Ma Xiaopeng, Bao Chunhui, Wu Huangan, Zhao Chen, Ding Guanghong, Qi Li, Zhou Shuang. Effect of warming moxibustion Tianshu(ST 25, bilateral) and Qihai(CV 6) for the treatment of diarrhea-dominant irritable bowel syndrome: a patient-blinded pilot trial with orthogonal design [J]. Journal of Traditional Chinese Medicine, 2017, 37(04): 538-545. |
| [6] | Deng Bo, Jia Liqun, Tan Huangying, Lou Yanni, Li Xue, Li Yuan, Yu Lili. Effects of Shengjiangxiexin decoction on irinotecan-induced toxicity in patients with UGT1A1*28 and UGT1A1*6 polymorphisms [J]. Journal of Traditional Chinese Medicine, 2017, 37(01): 35-42. |
| [7] | Wang Yuan, Niu Wenmin, Yang Xiaohang, Liu Na, Liu Zhibin. Effects of electronically stimulating Tianshu(ST 25) and Dachangshu(BL 25), Quchi(LI 11) and Shangjuxu(ST 37) on the expressions of jejunum c-kit protein and c-kit m RNA in rats with functional diarrhea [J]. Journal of Traditional Chinese Medicine, 2016, 36(06): 779-783. |
| [8] | Guo Huijun, Wang Jian, Li Zhengwei, Jiang Ziqiang, Xu Qianlei, Xu Liran. Effect of treatment course of comprehensive intervention with Traditional Chinese Medicine on mortality of acquired immunodeficiency syndrome patients treated with combined antiretroviral therapy [J]. Journal of Traditional Chinese Medicine, 2016, 36(04): 411-417. |
| [9] | Wen Bi Ling , Liu Bao Yan , Peng Jin , Wang Xue Feng , Xiang Xi Xiong , Liu Xiao Fan , Hu Jing Qing , Lu Fang , He Li Yun , Zhu Wen Zeng , Fang Yi Gong , Wang Yu. Clinical research of acupoint application for "treatment of winterdisease in summer" used to prevent and treat bronchial asthma inchildren [J]. Journal of Traditional Chinese Medicine, 2012, 32(01): 31-39. |
| [10] | Hu Rui , Tang Fang. Effects of Wei Chang An pill(胃肠安丸) on enzyme activity and levels of vasoactive peptide and substance P in the small intestine of rats with compound diarrhea [J]. Journal of Traditional Chinese Medicine, 2012, 32(01): 52-57. |
| Viewed | ||||||
|
Full text |
|
|||||
|
Abstract |
|
|||||
