目的 探讨阳性激发点推拿联合依托芬那酯凝胶治疗对颈肩背肌筋膜炎的临床疗效。 方法 收集2011年2月－10月确诊为颈肩背肌炎的患者52例，采用随机对照试验,其中26例采用依托芬那酯凝胶加阳性激发点推拿（治疗组），另外26例采用传统推拿进行常规推拿手法治疗（对照组）。对两组患者5次治疗后的疗效率、每次治疗后的疼痛面谱量化评分、7个月后随访疼痛复发率等疗效进行对照分析。 结果 治疗组和对照组经连续治疗5次后，总有效率分别为96.15%和80.77%，差异均有统计学意义（P＜0.05）；疼痛面谱量化评分治疗组在第一次治疗后就较对照组改善明显，差异有统计学意义（P＜0.05）；7个月后随访疼痛复发人数治疗组较对照组少，差异有统计学意义（P＜0.05）。 结论 阳性激发点推拿联合依托芬那酯凝胶治疗方案对改善颈肩背肌筋膜炎引发的颈肩背部疼痛不适等症状优于传统推拿组，值得临床推广运用。
目的 探讨阳性激发点推拿治疗对足底筋膜炎的临床疗效。 方法 对2011年3月－8月门诊确诊为足底筋膜炎的52例患者，采用随机方式分为治疗组和对照组各26例，治疗组采用阳性激发点推拿，对照组采用电针治疗。并对两组患者治疗5次后的即时疗效率、日本骨科学会（JOA）足底治疗疗效评分、每次治疗后的疼痛面谱量化评分、3个月随访疼痛复发率等疗效进行对照分析。 结果 治疗组和对照组经连续治疗5次后，其JOA足底治疗疗效评分分别为（91.32 ± 10.61）、（82.92 ± 13.61）分，总有效率分别为96.15%、80.77%，差异均有统计学意义（P＜0.05）。疼痛面谱量化评分，治疗组在第一次治疗后较对照组改善明显，差异有统计学意义（P＜0.05）。3个月后随访疼痛复发情况，治疗组复发人数较对照组少，差异有统计学意义（P＜0.05）。结论 阳性激发点推拿治疗法对改善足底筋膜炎引发的足底疼痛、步行不适等症状优于电针治疗法，值得临床推广运用。
目的：总结汶川地震中骨折患者的康复治疗及其伤情分析，为灾难医学中骨折患者的康复治疗提供经验。方法：收集四川大学华西医院地震伤员康复中心的112例骨折患者资料，对伤情进行分析并对其康复治疗情况进行总结。结果：经康复治疗后患者的日常生活活动能力明显提高。结论：康复治疗对骨折患者非常重要。
【Abstract】Objective To evaluate the value of pTNM classification in predicting the prognosis of hepatic cell carcinoma after liver transplantation. Methods Fifty-nine HCC cases undergoing liver transplantation between April 1993 and January 2003 were retrospectively reviewed. Fiftynine cases were staged by using the pTNM classification. Results The 1-year survival rates were 66.67%, 66.67%, 40.91% and 31.75% for Ⅰ，Ⅱ，Ⅲa and Ⅳa stages，2-year survival rates were 66.67%, 66.67%, 21.29% and 31.75%, the difference was not statistically significant. Conclusion The pTNM classification is not good enough to predict the prognosis of hepatic cell carcinoma after liver transplantation.
Objective To introduce the multivariate random effects model (MREM) in the meta-analysis of diagnostic tests with multiple thresholds. Methods This paper expanded and extended the bivariate random effects model (BREM) to develop the MREM, and implemented it in the SAS Proc NLMIXED procedure. Results The MREM could obtain the study specific ROC curve for each study through empirical Bayes estimation, and the summary ROC curve located in between all study specific ROC curves evenly, while the BREM couldn’t obtain the study specific ROC curve. In addition, in the aspect of parameters estimation, the MREM didn’t depend on the choice of the diagnosis threshold and the type of SROC. The MREM could get only one SROC curve and its AUC was between the AUC of the 5 types of SROC from BREM, so it could avoid overestimation or underestimation. Conclusion The MREM can fully exploit the data, obtain stable and reliable results, and have a good application value in meta-analysis of diagnostic tests with multiple thresholds.