" Comparative study of the effect of "Ginger-Lavender" capsule with Mefenamic Acid" on the severity of primary dysmenorrhea, A controlled experimental study

S. Jannesari, Shadi Ahmadi, S. Sahranavard, M. Nasiri
{"title":"\" Comparative study of the effect of \"Ginger-Lavender\" capsule with Mefenamic Acid\" on the severity of primary dysmenorrhea, A controlled experimental study","authors":"S. Jannesari, Shadi Ahmadi, S. Sahranavard, M. Nasiri","doi":"10.22038/IJOGI.2021.55834.4760","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction:Dysmenorrhea is a major problem in women's general and individual health. The aim of this study was to compare the effect of\"Ginger-Lavender\"capsule with\" Mefenamic Acid\" on the severity of primary dysmenorrhea. Methods: A triple-blind clinical trial study was performed on 60 students living in dormitories of Shahid Beheshti University in 1399 with a history of dysmenorrhea .In the intervention group 500mg capsules of\" Ginger-Lavender\" and in the control group 250mg capsules of \"Mefenamic Acid\" in similar capsules were prescribed.The mean and mean differences in pain intensity between the groups were assessed by SPSS 24 using t-test, Bonferroni and Analysis of Variance.Results: Before the intervention there was no significant difference between the groups in terms of pain intensity(p=0.22). In the first and second cycle after intervention between the groups using two-factor statistical test showed a significant difference(p<0.05). Intra-group one-factor test with comparison of three cycles showed a statistically significant difference in the group \"ginger-lavender \"(p=0.001)and \"Mefenamic Acid \" (p=0.00), Bonferroni test in both groups showed a significant difference between the mean pain intensity before the intervention with the first and second cycle (p=0.00).Analysis of Variance showed that the mean pain score in the \"Ginger-Lavender \" group was 1.53 less than the\" Mefenamic Acid \" capsule. There was a significant difference in the duration of bleeding compared to the three cycle in the \"Ginger-Lavender\" group.(p=0.07)Conclusion:The results of the study showed \"Ginger-Lavender\" capsule reduces the pain of primary dysmenorrhea without any serious side effects and is more effective than Mefenamic Acid.","PeriodicalId":39154,"journal":{"name":"Iranian Journal of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Infertility","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-09-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Iranian Journal of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Infertility","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.22038/IJOGI.2021.55834.4760","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction:Dysmenorrhea is a major problem in women's general and individual health. The aim of this study was to compare the effect of"Ginger-Lavender"capsule with" Mefenamic Acid" on the severity of primary dysmenorrhea. Methods: A triple-blind clinical trial study was performed on 60 students living in dormitories of Shahid Beheshti University in 1399 with a history of dysmenorrhea .In the intervention group 500mg capsules of" Ginger-Lavender" and in the control group 250mg capsules of "Mefenamic Acid" in similar capsules were prescribed.The mean and mean differences in pain intensity between the groups were assessed by SPSS 24 using t-test, Bonferroni and Analysis of Variance.Results: Before the intervention there was no significant difference between the groups in terms of pain intensity(p=0.22). In the first and second cycle after intervention between the groups using two-factor statistical test showed a significant difference(p<0.05). Intra-group one-factor test with comparison of three cycles showed a statistically significant difference in the group "ginger-lavender "(p=0.001)and "Mefenamic Acid " (p=0.00), Bonferroni test in both groups showed a significant difference between the mean pain intensity before the intervention with the first and second cycle (p=0.00).Analysis of Variance showed that the mean pain score in the "Ginger-Lavender " group was 1.53 less than the" Mefenamic Acid " capsule. There was a significant difference in the duration of bleeding compared to the three cycle in the "Ginger-Lavender" group.(p=0.07)Conclusion:The results of the study showed "Ginger-Lavender" capsule reduces the pain of primary dysmenorrhea without any serious side effects and is more effective than Mefenamic Acid.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
“姜薰衣草胶囊与甲芬那酸对原发性痛经严重程度影响的对照实验研究”
痛经是困扰女性整体和个体健康的主要问题。本研究的目的是比较“姜薰衣草”胶囊与“甲非那酸”对原发性痛经严重程度的影响。方法:对1999年沙希德·贝赫什蒂大学宿舍60名有痛经史的学生进行三盲临床试验,干预组给予“姜-薰衣草”胶囊500mg,对照组给予同类胶囊中“甲非那酸”胶囊250mg。采用SPSS 24统计软件进行t检验、Bonferroni检验和方差分析,比较各组疼痛强度的均值和均值差异。结果:干预前两组患者疼痛强度差异无统计学意义(p=0.22)。干预后第1、2个周期各组间经双因素统计检验差异有统计学意义(p<0.05)。组内单因素检验与三个周期比较,“姜-薰衣草”组与“甲非那明酸”组差异有统计学意义(p=0.001),两组的Bonferroni检验显示干预前的平均疼痛强度与第一个和第二个周期比较差异有统计学意义(p=0.00)。方差分析显示,“姜-薰衣草”组的平均疼痛评分比“甲氧胺酸”组低1.53分。与三个周期相比,“姜-薰衣草”组的出血时间差异有统计学意义(p=0.07)。结论:研究结果表明,“姜-薰衣草”胶囊可减轻原发性痛经疼痛,且无严重副作用,效果优于甲芬那酸。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
10 weeks
期刊最新文献
Prevalence and consequences related to sexual violence in perimenopausal women: A systematic review Evaluation of postoperative pain experienced by female candidates for gynecological surgery with lithotomy position " Comparative study of the effect of "Ginger-Lavender" capsule with Mefenamic Acid" on the severity of primary dysmenorrhea, A controlled experimental study Shivering control in women under spinal anesthesia: A reviewed study of the role of anesthetics Prevalence of exclusive breastfeeding and its related factors in Iran: A systematic review and meta-analysis
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1