Observational Study
Copyright ©The Author(s) 2024.
World J Clin Cases. Jul 6, 2024; 12(19): 3837-3844
Published online Jul 6, 2024. doi: 10.12998/wjcc.v12.i19.3837
Table 1 Treatment efficiency

Cure
Excellence
Effective
Ineffective
Total effectiveness
N03352738
Percentage04.653.841.558.5
Table 2 Comparison of patients' national institutes of health-chronic prostatitis symptom index scores before and after treatment
Parameter
Pre-treatment (n = 65)
Post-treatment (n = 65)
P value
NIH-CPSI, (mean ± SD)
Total score23.29 ± 7.8915.23 ± 5.67P < 0.001
Pain subscales11.38 ± 4.617.45 ± 3.93P < 0.001
Q1-37 ± 2.674.74 ± 2.59P < 0.001
Q44.38 ± 2.512.71 ± 1.79P < 0.001
Urinary subscales4.26 ± 2.352.43 ± 1.32P < 0.001
Q52.22 ± 1.491.25 ± 0.9P < 0.001
Q62.05 ± 1.31.18 ± 0.73P < 0.001
QoL subscales7.65 ± 2.415.35 ± 2.16P < 0.001
Q7-83.54 ± 1.564.38 ± 2.51P = 0.0012 < 0.01
Q94.11 ± 1.083.08 ± 1.15P < 0.001
Table 3 Comparison of patients' international index of erectile function 5 and premature ejaculation diagnostic tool scores before and after treatment

Pre-treatment
Post-treatment
P value
IIEF-5, (mean ± SD)15.92 ± 5.0217.14 ± 4.81P = 0.0005 < 0.001
PEDT, (mean ± SD)8.51 ± 4.316.63 ± 3.63P = 0.001 < 0.05
Table 4 Comparison of patients' Generalized Anxiety Disorder, Patient Health Questionnaire and The Pain Catastrophizing Scale scores before and after treatment
Parameter
Pre-treatment
Post-treatment
P value
GAD, (mean ± SD)9.4 ± 5.524.38 ± 4.1P < 0.001
PHQ, (mean ± SD)7.65 ± 6.34.05 ± 3.9P < 0.001
PCS, (mean ± SD)13.55 ± 11.437.83 ± 7.42P < 0.001
Table 5 Comparison of patients' traditional Chinese medicine syndrome scores before and after treatment
ParameterPre-treatmentPost-treatmentP value
TCMS, (mean ± SD)21.35 ± 109.42 ± 7.4P < 0.001