Clinical observation of Kuntai capsule combined with Fenmotong in treatment of decline of ovarian reserve function

Table 1 Comparison of two groups of general data (n = 65)

Group	Age	Course of disease	Number of pregnancies	Pregnancy times (times)	BMI (kg/m2)
Fenmatong group	34.02 ± 3.89	3.45 ± 0.61	2.05 ± 0.36	1.32 ± 0.28	23.17 ± 1.24
Observation group	33.74 ± 4.29	3.38 ± 0.57	1.98 ± 0.45	1.37 ± 0.26	23.06 ± 1.48
t	0.390	0.676	0.979	1.055	0.459
P value	0.697	0.500	0.329	0.293	0.647

BMI: Body mass index.

Table 2 Comparison of curative effects between the two groups [n = 65, n (%)]

Group	Significant effect	Effective	Invalid	Total efficiency
Fenmatong group	32 (49.23)	21 (32.31)	12 (18.46)	53 (81.54)
Observation group	47 (72.31)	14 (21.54)	4 (6.15)	61 (93.85)
χ2				4.561
P value				0.033

Table 3 Comparison of traditional Chinese medicine syndrome scores between the two groups (mean ± SD, scores)

Group	n	Less menstruation		Delayed menstruation		The color is red and thick		Dizziness and palpitations
		Before treatment	After treatment	Before treatment	After treatment	Before treatment	After treatment	Before treatment	After treatment
Fenmatong group	65	4.63 ± 1.14	2.03 ± 0.75	4.37 ± 1.23	1.89 ± 0.64	4.12 ± 1.05	1.95 ± 0.54	2.36 ± 0.54	1.32 ± 0.39
Observation group	65	4.59 ± 1.07	1.27 ± 0.59	4.39 ± 1.21	1.04 ± 0.37	4.18 ± 0.97	1.12 ± 0.38	2.41 ± 0.47	0.87 ± 0.31
t		0.206	6.421	0.093	9.270	0.338	10.134	0.563	7.282
P value		0.837	0.000	0.426	0.000	0.736	0.000	0.574	0.000
Group	n	Sore waist and knees		Insomnia and dreaminess		Irritable		Pudendal dryness
		Before treatment	After treatment	Before treatment	After treatment	Before treatment	After treatment	Before treatment	After treatment
Fenmatong group	65	2.27 ± 0.43	1.37 ± 0.37	1.97 ± 0.37	1.21 ± 0.29	2.08 ± 0.35	1.09 ± 0.28	1.86 ± 0.44	1.03 ± 0.32
Observation group	65	2.31 ± 0.37	0.87 ± 0.49	2.03 ± 0.41	0.74 ± 0.23	2.11 ± 0.37	0.79 ± 0.25	1.81 ± 0.46	0.58 ± 0.27
t		0.568	6.565	0.876	10.238	0.475	6.444	0.633	8.665
P value		0.571	0.000	0.383	0.000	0.636	0.000	0.528	0.000

Table 4 Comparison of uterine artery blood flow parameters between the two groups (n = 65, mean ± SD)

Group	PSV (cm/s)		EDV (cm/s)		RI
	Before treatment	After treatment	Before treatment	After treatment	Before treatment	After treatment
Fenmatong group	30.85 ± 3.14	35.42 ± 3.36	5.24 ± 1.14	12.19 ± 1.45	0.87 ± 0.10	0.81 ± 0.08
Observation group	30.41 ± 3.52	38.96 ± 3.11	5.30 ± 1.07	15.89 ± 1.57	0.86 ± 0.13	0.73 ± 0.10
t	0.752	6.234	0.309	13.958	0.492	5.036
P value	0.453	0.000	0.758	0.000	0.624	0.000

PSV: Systolic peak flow rate; EDV: End-diastolic flow rate.

Table 5 Comparison of ultrasonic detection indexes of ovaries between the two groups (n = 65, mean ± SD)

Group	Ovarian diameter(cm)		Antral follicle count
	Before treatment	After treatment	Before treatment	After treatment
Fenmatong group	2.56 ± 0.12	2.60 ± 0.10	3.08 ± 0.57	4.64 ± 0.51
Observation group	2.57 ± 0.13	2.64 ± 0.14	3.12 ± 0.53	4.91 ± 0.43
t	0.456	1.874	0.414	3.263
P value	0.649	0.063	0.679	0.001

Table 6 Comparison of pictorial blood loss assessment chart scores between the two groups (n = 65, mean ± SD)

Group	PBAC score
	Before treatment	After treatment
Fenmatong group	18.14 ± 2.98	21.74 ± 3.06
Observation group	17.95 ± 3.15	23.45 ± 2.77
t	0.353	3.340
P value	0.724	0.001

PBAC: Pictorial blood loss assessment chart.

Table 7 Comparison of hormone levels between the two groups (n = 65)

Group	FSH (IU/L)		E2 (pg/mL)		AMH (ng/mL)
	Before treatment	After treatment	Before treatment	After treatment	Before treatment	After treatment
Fenmatong group	18.21 ± 2.44	13.78 ± 2.06	25.38 ± 3.24	44.23 ± 4.05	0.22 ± 0.05	0.26 ± 0.07
Observation group	18.14 ± 2.26	10.14 ± 1.57	24.89 ± 4.77	57.96 ± 5.17	0.21 ± 0.08	0.29 ± 0.09
t	0.170	11.330	0.685	16.855	0.855	2.121
P value	0.866	0.000	0.495	0.000	0.394	0.036

FSH: Follicle-stimulating hormone; E2: Estradiol; AMH: Anti-Mullerian hormone.