Page 33 - วารสารการแพทย์แผนไทย ปีที่ 20 ฉบับที่ 2 พฤษภาคม-สิงหาคม 2565

J Thai Trad Alt Med Vol. 20 No. 2 May-Aug 2022 231

good, and 21.28% vs. 17.39% as fair. The global statistically significantly different (p = 0.875).
assessment results of both groups were not Similarly, the amount of paracetamol taken by

Table 2 VAS pain scores (Mean ± S.D.) at baseline and days after intervention with diclofenac and Justicia gendarussa
Burm.f. medicated sprays.
VAS pain scores (Mean ± S.D.)
Baseline Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 Day 5 Day 6 Day 7

Diclofenac spray 5.68 ± 5.33 ± 4.54 ± 3.93 ± 3.30 ± 2.78 ± 2.04 ± 2.21 ±
1.63 1.61 1.31 1.50 1.49 1.47 1.55 1.50

Justicia gendarussa spray 5.94 ± 5.17 ± 4.83 ± 4.23 ± 3.79 ± 3.02 ± 2.70 ± 2.34 ±
1.67 1.81 1.80 1.90 1.88 2.01 2.18 1.82
* p-value 0.450 0.867 0.395 0.379 0.843 0.459 0.088 0.680
†
* Mixed-effects linear regression model
† Adjusted for gender

Table 3 Percentages and numbers of patients who had swelling of the affected areas and the risk ratio of swelling at a
baseline and at post-treatment in the diclofenac spray and Justicia gendarussa Burm.f. medicated spray groups.

Diclofenac spray Justicia gendarussa p-value Risk ratio (95%CI) †
(n = 46) spray (n = 45)
Swelling at baseline 100.00% (47) 97.87% (46)
Swelling after treatment 54.35% (25) 53.33% (24) 0.951 0.988 (0.660 to 1.478)
p-value < 0.001 < 0.001

Values were shown as Percentage (Number)
† Adjusted for gender

groups (p = 0.951). While, the JGS group could in each day. Meanwhile, as shown in Table 4,

reduce swelling at the risk ratio of 0.988 (95% the assessment result was not statistically
confidence interval, 0.66-1.478) at Day 7 when different (p = 0.447).
compared to the DFS group. The global assessment results in each

Three days after using DFS in comparison group evaluated the efficacy of the medication
with JGS to treat the patients for soft tissue they received on a scale of 1 to 3 (1 = fair, 2 =

injury, the clinical improvement of JGS group good, and 3 = very good). The results for DFS
according to the hazard ratio was improved versus JGS, as shown in Figure 2, were 19.5%
faster than that of the DFS group by 1.18 time vs. 17.39% as very good, 59.57% vs. 65.22% as