Effect of positive emotion training and warm acupuncture on negative emotion and facial nerve in intractable facial paralysis

Table 1 Comparison of baseline data between the two groups of patients, mean ± SD/n (%)

	Control group (n = 60)	Observation group (n = 60)	t/χ2	P value
Age (years)	53.23 ± 11.31	51.69 ± 10.70	0.766	0.445
Gender			0.315	0.575
Male	35 (58.33)	38 (63.33)
Female	25 (41.67)	22 (36.67)
BMI (kg/m2)	23.15 ± 1.37	23.20 ± 1.40	-0.194	0.846
Disease course (months)	5.16 ± 1.05	5.14 ± 1.04	0.078	0.938
Lesion location			0.134	0.714
Left	31 (51.67)	33 (55.00)
Right	29 (48.33)	27 (45.00)

This table compares the baseline continuous variables (age, body mass index, disease course) between the two groups using the independent samples t-test, and compares the categorical variables (gender, lesion location) using the χ². The results show no statistically significant differences between the two groups for all baseline characteristics (P > 0.05). BMI: Body mass index.

Table 2 Comparison of treatment scores between the two groups of patients, mean ± SD

	SFGS score (scores)
	Before treatment	After treatment
Control group (n = 60)	35.02 ± 6.99	67.12 ± 6.62
Observation group (n = 60)	34.30 ± 8.33	84.20 ± 7.59
t	0.511	-13.140
P value	0.611	< 0.001

This table adopts independent sample t-test to compare pre- treatment and post-treatment Simplified Facial Grading Scale scores between the control group and observation group; pre-treatment Simplified Facial Grading Scale presents comparable levels (P > 0.05), while post-treatment score is significantly higher in observation group (P < 0.001). SFGS: Simplified Facial Grading Scale.

Table 3 Comparison of anxiety and depression symptom scores between the two groups of patients, mean ± SD

	SAS score (scores)		SDS score (scores)
	Before treatment	After treatment	Before treatment	After treatment
Control group (n = 60)	58.80 ± 3.91	44.32 ± 1.99	59.07 ± 2.36	44.37 ± 2.46
Observation group (n = 60)	58.32 ± 3.42	34.90 ± 2.01	59.13 ± 2.53	34.22 ± 2.10
t	0.721	25.833	-0.149	24.330
P value	0.472	< 0.001	0.882	< 0.001

This table displays the changes in anxiety (Self-Rating Anxiety Scale) and depression (Self-Rating Depression Scale) symptom scores analyzed by independent samples t-tests. The data reveals that while pre-treatment scores were similar (P > 0.05), post-treatment scores were significantly lower in the observation group compared to the control group for both Self-Rating Anxiety Scale (t = 25.833) and Self-Rating Depression Scale (t = 24.330) scales (P < 0.001). SAS: Self-Rating Anxiety Scale; SDS: Self-Rating Depression Scale.

Table 4 Comparison of clinical efficacy between the two groups of patients, n (%)

	Number of examples	Get well	Effective	Efficient	Invalid	Overall efficiency
Control group	60	12 (20.00)	18 (30.00)	17 (28.33)	13 (21.67)	47 (78.33)
Observation group	60	18 (30.00)	22 (36.67)	15 (25.00)	5 (8.33)	55 (91.67)
χ2						4.183
P value						0.041

This table compares the clinical efficacy rates between the two groups using a χ². The analysis demonstrates that the overall efficiency rate was significantly higher in the observation group (91.67%) than in the control group (78.33%), with a statistically significant difference observed (P = 0.041).