...
首页> 外文期刊>Archives of gynecology and obstetrics. >A randomized trial comparing a polyherbal pessary (a complementary and alternative medicine) with Ginlac-V pessary (containing clotrimazole, tinidazole and lactobacilli) for treatment of women with symptomatic vaginal discharge.
【24h】

A randomized trial comparing a polyherbal pessary (a complementary and alternative medicine) with Ginlac-V pessary (containing clotrimazole, tinidazole and lactobacilli) for treatment of women with symptomatic vaginal discharge.

机译:一项随机试验比较多药子宫托(补充和替代药物)与Ginlac-V子宫托(含有克霉唑,替硝唑和乳杆菌)治疗有症状的白带妇女。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例

摘要

BACKGROUND: Most women with abnormal vaginal discharge have infection due to candida species, bacterial vaginosis or trichomoniasis and often seek treatment without laboratory confirmation. In this context, a single agent effective against these infections would be useful. AIM: To compare the efficacy of two such agents: Praneem polyherbal pessary; a complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) with Ginlac-V pessary (containing clotrimazole, tinidazole and lactobacilli) for treatment of abnormal vaginal discharge. SETTINGS AND DESIGN: A randomized study in a tertiary care hospital in North India. Methods: One hundred women were randomized for treatment with either of the two pessaries. Clinical examination and laboratory evaluation was done before and after treatment. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Mc-Nemar test and Chi-square test. RESULTS: Overall, 82% (82/100) reported symptomatic relief; 78% (39/50) with Praneem and 86% (43/50) with Ginlac-V. Only 36% (18/50 in each group) had laboratory-confirmed infection; 18% (18/100) candidosis, 17% (17/100) bacterial vaginosis, 1% (1/100) both; none had trichomoniasis. Among these, symptomatic improvement was seen in 72% (13/18) and laboratory cure in 78% (14/18) with Praneem; symptomatic improvement in 78% (14/18) and laboratory cure in 78% (14/18) with Ginlac-V. Clinical or laboratory criteria could assess treatment efficacy equally. Neither drug was efficacious in candidosis. Ginlac-V was efficacious in bacterial vaginosis (100%) and though Praneem showed a similar trend, it was not statistically significant. Vaginal irritation was more frequent with Praneem (16% vs 4% with Ginlac-V). CONCLUSION: Both Praneem and Ginlac-V provided symptomatic relief in most of the women. Either clinical or laboratory criteria could assess treatment efficacy of both drugs. Ginlac-V was efficacious for treating bacterial vaginosis.
机译:背景:大多数白带异常的女性由于念珠菌属,细菌性阴道病或滴虫而感染,并且经常在未经实验室确认的情况下寻求治疗。在这种情况下,对这些感染有效的单一药剂将是有用的。目的:比较两种药物的功效:Pra仁多药子宫托;一种含Ginlac-V子宫托的辅助和替代药物(CAM)(包含克霉唑,替硝唑和乳杆菌),用于治疗异常的阴道分泌物。场所与设计:在印度北部一家三级护理医院中进行的一项随机研究。方法:将一百名女性随机分为两个子宫托进行治疗。治疗前后进行临床检查和实验室评估。统计分析:Mc-Nemar检验和卡方检验。结果:总体而言,有82%(82/100)的患者出现了症状缓解。使用Praneem时占78%(39/50),使用Ginlac-V时占86%(43/50)。只有36%(每组18/50)患有实验室确诊的感染; 18%(18/100)念珠菌病,17%(17/100)细菌性阴道病,1%(1/100)两者;均无滴虫病。在这些药物中,普拉尼姆的症状改善率为72%(13/18),实验室治愈率为78%(14/18)。 Ginlac-V可使症状改善78%(14/18),实验室治愈率78%(14/18)。临床或实验室标准可以平等评估治疗效果。两种药物均不能有效治疗念珠菌病。 Ginlac-V对细菌性阴道病有效(100%),尽管Praneem表现出相似的趋势,但在统计学上无统计学意义。 Praneem引起的阴道刺激更为频繁(16%vs Ginlac-V为4%)。结论:普拉尼姆和Ginlac-V均可为大多数妇女提供症状缓解。临床或实验室标准均可评估两种药物的治疗效果。 Ginlac-V有效治疗细菌性阴道病。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号