Clinical study on tri-tongue acupuncture combined with low-frequency electrical stimulation for treating post-stroke dysarthria

Table 1 Comparison of total effective rate between the two groups (n, %)

Group	Sample	Basic recovery	Significantly effective	Effective	Not effective	Total effective rate
Control group	45	16	12	9	8	37 (82.22%)
Treatment group	45	18	15	10	2	43 (95.56%)
χ2 value						4.050
P value						0.044

Table 2 Comparison of WAB, Frenchay Dysarthria Assessment Scale, and GQOLI-74 scores between the two groups

Group	WAB scoring		GQOLI-74 scoring		Frenchay Dysarthria Assessment Scale scoring
	Pre-treatment	Post-treatment	Pre-treatment	Post-treatment	Pre-treatment	Post-treatment
Control group	36.42 ± 5.71	53.16 ± 7.57	248.82 ± 32.28	307.53 ± 37.26	6.46 ± 0.85	8.51 ± 1.13
Treatment group	36.27 ± 5.64	62.49 ± 9.13	248.13 ± 32.43	341.57 ± 43.19	6.31 ± 0.83	11.29 ± 1.62
t value	0.125	5.277	0.101	4.003	0.847	9.442
P value	0.901	< 0.001	0.920	< 0.001	0.399	< 0.001

WAB: Western Aphasia Battery; GQOLI-74: General quality of life inventory.

Table 3 Comparison of speech function grades between the two groups

Group	Grade 1		Grade 2		Grade 3		Grade 4		Grade 5
	Pre-treatment, %	Post-treatment, %	Pre-treatment, %	Post-treatment, %	Pre-treatment, %	Post-treatment, %	Pre-treatment, %	Post-treatment, %	Pre-treatment, %	Post-treatment, %
Control group (n = 45)	13 (28.89)	5 (11.11)a	23 (51.11)	13 (28.89)a	6 (13.33)	11 (24.44)a	3 (6.67)	14 (31.11)a	0 (0)	2 (4.44)a
Treatment group (n = 45)	14 (31.11)	0 (0)a b	21 (46.67)	2 (4.44)a,b	7 (15.56)	17 (37.78)a,b	2 (4.44)	19 (42.22)a,b	1 (2.22)	7 (15.56)a,b

^aP < 0.05, comparison with status before treatment.

^bP < 0.05, comparison with the control group.