6.result and Observation

Observations & Results
The following observations were made during the time of research study.
TABLE-1: SHOWING THE INCIDENCE OF AGE OF THE PATIENTS
[N= 45]
AGE GROUP NO. OF PATIENTS PERCENTAGE (%)

1-10 1 2.22
11-20 2 4.45
21-30 13 28.89
31-40 18 40
41-50 5 11.11
51-60 5 11.11
61-70 0 0
71-80 1 2.22
TOTAL 45 100
N= Total number of patients
INCIDENCE OF AGE
20
15
10
no. of patients
5
0
1-10 11-20 21-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 61-70 71-80
year year year year year year year year
(FIGURE NO.1)
The above table shows that out of 45 patients of durdagdha,1(2.22 %) patient

was in 1-10 year of age group, 2(4.45%) patients were in 11-20 year of age
group,13(28.89%) patients were in 21-30 year of age group, 18(40%) patients were in
31-40 year of age group, 5(11.11%) patients were in 41-50 year of age group and 51-
60 year of age group, 1(2.22%) patient was in 71-80 year of age group and no patients
were in 61-70 year of age group.
[A clinical study on durdagdha w.s.r to second degree superficial burn and its 68
management with indigenous drugs.]
TABLE-2: SHOWING THE INCIDENCE OF SEX OF THE PATIENTS (N= 45)
SEX NO. OF PATIENTS PERCENTAGE (%)

MALE 29 64.44
FEMALE 16 35.56
TOTAL 45 100
INCIDENCE OF SEX
FEMALE
MALE
(FIGURE NO.2)
The above table shows that, out of 45 patients, 29(64.44%) patients were male,
and 16(35.56%) patients were female persons. The highest prevalence was found in
male persons.
TABLE-3: SHOWING THE INCIDENCE OF MARITAL STATUS OF THE

PATIENTS (N=45)
MARITAL NO. OF PATIENTS PERCENTAGE (%)

STATUS
MARRIED 33 73.33
UNMARRIED 12 26.67
TOTAL 45 100
INCIDENCE OF MARITAL STATUS
40
30
20 NO. OF PATIENTS
10
0
MARRIED UNMARRIED
(FIGURE NO.3)
The above table shows that, out of 45 patients, 33(73.33%) patients were
married, and 12(26.67%) patients were unmarried. The highest prevalence was found
in married persons.
TABLE-4: SHOWING THE INCIDENCE OF EDUCATIONAL STATUS OF

THE PATIENTS (N=45)
EDUCATIONAL NO. OF PATIENTS PERCENTAGE (%)

STATUS
LITERATE 39 86.67
ILLITERATE 6 13.33
TOTAL 45 100
INCIDENCE OF EDUCATIONAL STATUS

ILLITERATE
LITERATE
(FIGURE NO.4)
literate, and 06(13.33%) patients were illiterate. The highest prevalence was found in
literate persons.
TABLE-5: SHOWING THE INCIDENCE OF ECONOMICAL STATUS OF

THE PATIENTS (N= 45)
ECONOMICAL STATUS NO. OF PATIENTS PERCENTAGE (%)

B.P.L 28 62.22
A.P.L 17 37.78
TOTAL 45 100
INCIDENCE OF ECONOMICAL STATUS
APL
BPL
(FIGURE NO.5)
belongs to B.P.L families and 17(37.78%) patients were belongs to A.P.L families.
So, the highest prevalence was found in belongs to B.P.L families.
TABLE-6: SHOWING THE INCIDENCE OF HABITAT OF THE PATIENTS (N=45)
HABITAT NO. OF PATIENTS PERCENTAGE (%)

RURAL 10 22.22
URBAN 22 48.89
SEMIURBAN 13 28.89
TOTAL 45 100.00
INCIDENCE OF HABITAT
RURAL
SEMIURBAN
URBAN
(FIGURE NO.6)
Regarding the incidence of habitat the above table shows that out of 45
patients, 10(22.22%) were residing in rural area, 22(48.89%) were residing in urban
area and 13(28.89%) were from semi urban area.
TABLE-7: SHOWING THE INCIDENCE OF DIETARY HABIT OF THE PATIENTS

(N=45)
DIETARY HABIT NO. OF PATIENTS PERCENTAGE (%)
NON-VEG 36 80
VEG 9 20
TOTAL 45 100
INCIDENCE OF DIETARY HABIT
VEG
NONVEG
(FIGURE NO.7)
Regarding the nature of diet, the above table shows that, the maximum number
of patients i.e. 36(80%) were non-vegetarian and only 9(20%) were vegetarian.
TABLE-8: SHOWING THE INCIDENCE OF CAUSE OF INJURY OF THE

PATIENTS (N=45)
CAUSE OF NO. OF PATIENTS PERCENTAGE (%)

INJURY
SCALD 17 37.78
FAT 5 11.11
FLAME 19 42.22
CONTACT 4 8.89
ALKALI 0 0
ACIDIC 0 0
TOTAL 45 100
N= Total numbers of patients
INCIDENCE OF CAUSE OF INJURY
20
15
10
NO. OF PATIENTS
5
0
(FIGURE NO.8)
Regarding the cause of injury the above table shows that out of 45 patients, in
17(37.78%) patients the cause was scald, in 5(11.11%) patients the cause was fat. In
19(42.22%) patients the cause was flame, in 4(8.89%) patients the cause was contact
burn. It was revealed that, the highest incidence of cause of injury was flame.
TABLE-9: SHOWING THE INCIDENCE OF OCCUPATION OF THE

BURN PATIENTS (N=45)
OCCUPATION NO. OF PATIENTS PERCENTAGE (%)

ELECTRICIAN 1 2.22
TEACHER 2 4.45
GOVT. SERVANT 4 8.89
FARMER 5 11.11
LABOURER 6 13.33
BUSINESS MEN 8 17.78
HOUSEWIFE 9 20
STUDENT 10 22.22
TOATL 45 100
INCIDENCE OF OCCUPATION
10
8
6
4
2
0 NO. OF PATIENTS
(FIGURE NO.9)
Regarding the incidence of occupation the above table shows that out of 45
patients, 1(2.22%) patient was electrician, 2 (4.45%) were teacher, 4 (8.89%) were
govt. servants, 5 (11.11%) were farmer, 6 ( 13.33%) were labourer, 8 ( 17.78%) were
business men, 9 ( 20%) were house wife, and 10 ( 22.22%) were students. The highest
incidence was seen among the students.
TABLE-10: SHOWING THE INCIDENCE OF SIGN AND SYMPTOMS OF THE

PATIENTS (N=45)
SIGN & SYMPTOMS NO. OF PATIENTS PERCENTAGE (%)

PAIN 45 100
REDNESS 45 100
BLISTER 45 100
DISCHARGE 45 100
TOTAL 45 100
INCIDENCE OF SIGN & SYMPTOMS
50
40
30
20
10 NO. OF PATIENTS
0
(FIGURE NO.10)
The above table shows that all the 45(100%) cases were having complaining of
pain, redness, blister and discharge.
TABLE-11: SHOWING THE INCIDENCE OF ADDICTION OF THE

PATIENTS (N= 45)
ADDICTION NO. OF PATIENTS PERCENTAGE (%)

ALCOHOL 4 8.89
OTHERS 24 53.33
TOBACCO 14 31.11
DRUGS 0 0
OPIUM 3 6.67
TOTAL 45 100
N=Total number of patients
INCIDENCE OF ADDICTION
25
20
15
PATIENTS
10
0
ALCOHOL OTHERS TOBACCO DRUGS OPIUM
(FIGURE NO.11)
Regarding the addiction of the patients the above table shows that out of 45
patients, 4 (8.89%) patients were taking alcohol, 24 (53.33%) patients were taking
others like tea and coffee, 14 (31.11%) patients were taking tobacco, and 3 (6.67%)
patients were taking opium. The highest incidence seen in the patients were taking
other things.
During my research study some patients were dropped out.
TABLE-12: SHOWING DROPPED OUT PATIENTS
GROUP NO. OF PATIENTS DROPPED OUT PATIENTS TOTAL
TRIAL 30 2 28
CONTROL 15 3 12
TOTAL 45 5 40
Regarding the dropped out patients the above table shows that, out of 45
numbers of patients. 5 (11.11%) patients were dropped out I.e. 2 patients from trial
group and 3 patients from control group.
TABLE-13: SHOWING THE % 0F PATIENTS IMPROVED IN GR-T & GR-C

AFTER 7DAYS
SIGN & SYMPTOMS AT1

GR T% GR C%
PAIN 68 68
TENDERNESS 68 68
DISCHARGE 57 57
SIZE OF WOUND 93 93
SLOUGH 61 61
GRANULATION TISSUE 28 33
SCAR FORMATION 61 61
T.G- Trial Group, C.G- Control Group
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20 AT1 GR T%
10
0
AT1 GR C%
(FIGURE NO.12)
From the above table, the following observations were made regarding the
percentage of patient’s improvement in trial and control group. After 7 days of
treatment all the sign & symptoms in the patients of both the trial and control group
equally improved means pain and tenderness 68% in both the groups, discharge 57%
in both groups, size of the wound in both the group was 93%, slough and scar
formation was 61% and 28% granulation tissue formation in trial group & 33% in
control group.
TABLE- 14: SHOWING THE % OF PATIENTS IMPROVED IN GR-T & GR-C

AFTER 14 DAYS
SIGN & SYMPTOMS AT2

GR T% GR C%
PAIN 100 100
TENDERNESS 100 100
DISCHARGE 89 92
SIZE OF WOUND 100 100
SLOUGH 93 100
100
95
90
85
80
AT2 GR T%
75
AT2 GR C%
(FIGURE NO. 13)
The above table shows that regarding the percentage of patient’s improvement
with respect to sign and symptoms in both the trial and control groups. After 14 days
of treatments the patients of both the group having symptoms of pain, tenderness and
size of the wound cured 100%. After 14 days of treatments the patients of trial group
having symptoms of discharge cured 89% and in case of control group was 92%. The
patient of trial group having the symptoms of slough was 93% and in case of control
group was 100 i.e. cured. The patient of trial group having the symptoms of
granulation tissue formation was 85% and in case of control group was 91%. The
patient of trial group having the symptoms of scar formation was 89% and in case of
control group was 92%.
TABLE-15: SHOWING THE % OF PATIENTS IMPROVED IN GR-T & GR-C

AFTER 21 DAYS
SIGN & SYMPTOMS AT3

GR T% GR C%
PAIN 100 100
TENDERNESS 100 100
DISCHARGE 100 100
SLOUGH 100 100
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
AT3 GR T%
30
20 AT3 GR C%
10
0
(FIGURE NO.14)
The above table shows that regarding the percentage of patient’s improvements
with respect to all the sign& symptoms in both the trial and control group. After 21 days
of treatments 100% improvement in all the sign & symptoms of both the trial and control
group.
TABLE-16: SHOWING THE % OF PATIENTS IMPROVED IN GR-T &GR-C

AFTER 28 DAYS
SIGN & SYMPTOMS AT4

GR T% GR C%
PAIN 100 100
TENDERNESS 100 100
DISCHARGE 100 100
SLOUGH 100 100
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30 AT4 GR T%
20
10 AT4 GR C%
0
(FIGURE NO. 15)
The above table shows that regarding the percentage of patient’s improvements
with respect to all the sign& symptoms in both the trial and control group. After 28
days of treatments 100% improvement in all the sign & symptoms of both the trial and
control group.
TABLE-17: SHOWING THE % OF CHANGE IN GR T AND GR C AFTER 7 DAYS
Sl. No. SIGN & SYMPTOMS AT1

GR T% GR C%
1 PAIN 29.17 19.44
2 TENDERNESS 29.17 60.00
3 DISCHARGE 26.19 11.11
4 SIZE OF WOUND 28.59 29.55
5 SLOUGH 25.00 16.67
6 GRANULATION TISSUE 9.52 8.33
7 SCAR FORMATION 25.00 25.00
60.00
50.00
40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00 AT1 GT%
0.00 AT1 GC%
(FIGURE NO. 16)
percentage of improvement of sign & symptoms of both the groups with the
percentage of change. After 7 days of treatments the percentage of change of pain
among the trial group was reduced to 29.17% while in control group was 19.44%. The
percentage of change of tenderness among trial group was 29.17% but in control
group was 60%. The percentage of change of discharge among trial group was
26.19% but in case of control group was 11.11%. The size of the wound change
among trial group was 28.59% but in control group it was 29.55%. The percentage of
change of slough and scar formation was 25% in trial group but in control group
percentage of change in sign& symptoms was 16.67% in slough and 25% in scar
formation. The percentage change of sign & symptoms of granulation tissue formation
among trial group was 9.52% and in control group was 8.33%.
Sl. AT2
SIGN & SYMPTOMS
No. GT% GC%
1 PAIN 59.52 55.56
3 DISCHARGE 59.52 50.00
5 SLOUGH 57.14 47.22
70.00
60.00
50.00
40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00 AT2 GT%
0.00
AT2 GC%
(FIGURE NO. 17)
percentage of change.
After 14 days of treatments the percentage of change of pain among the trial
group was 59.52% while in control group was 55.56%. The percentage of change of
tenderness among trial group was 67.86% and in case of control group was 59.72%.
The percentage of change of discharge among trial group was 59.52%but in case of
control group was 50%. The size of the wound change among trial group was 61.30%
but in control group it was 56.46%.
The percentage of change of slough among the trial group was 57.14% and in
case of control group was 47.22%. The percentage change of sign & symptoms of
granulation tissue formation among trial group was 38.10% and in control group was
36.11%. The percentage of change of scar formation among trial group was 49.40%
and in case of control group was 45.83%.
TABLE-19: SHOWING THE % OF CHANGE IN GR T AND GR C AFTER 21DAYS
Sl. AT3
SIGN & SYMPTOMS
No. GT% GC%
1 PAIN 79.76 79.17
3 DISCHARGE 82.74 79.17
5 SLOUGH 70.24 79.17
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10 AT3 GT%
0
AT3 GC%
(FIGURE NO. 18)
among the trial group was 79.76% while in control group was 79.17%
The percentage of change of tenderness among trial group was 88.69% and in
case of control group was 87.50% the percentage of change of discharge among trial
group was 82.74%but in case of control group was 79.17% the size of the wound
change among trial group was 77.69% but in control group it was 85.23%. The
percentage of change of slough among the trial group was 70.24% and in case of
control group was 79.17%. The percentage change of sign & symptoms of granulation
tissue formation among trial group was 50.30% and in control group was 61.11%. The
percentage of change of scar formation among trial group was 59.52% and in case of
control group was 73.61%.
Sl. AT4
SIGN & SYMPTOMS
No. GT% GC%
1 PAIN 88.69 91.67
3 DISCHARGE 90.48 81.95
5 SLOUGH 86.9 90.28
100
80
60
40
20 AT4 GT%
0
AT4 GC%
(FIGURE NO. 19)
among the trial group was 88.69% while in control group was 91.67%. The percentage
of change of tenderness among trial group was 91.67% and in case of control group
was 90.28%.The percentage of change of discharge among trial group was 90.48%but
in case of control group was 81.95%. The size of the wound change among trial group
was 92.50% but in control group it was 94.76%. The percentage of change of slough
among the trial group was 86.90% and in case of control group was 90.28%. The
percentage change of sign & symptoms of granulation tissue formation among trial
group was 73.81% and in control group was 77.78%. The percentage of change of
scar formation among trial group was 63.10% and in case of control group was
73.61%.
TABLE-21: SHOWING THE SIZE OF THE WOUND WITH % OF

IMPROVEMENT IN GR-T
SIZE OF THE
WOUND IN
CM2 BT(f) AT1 P* AT2 P* AT3 P* AT4 P*
0-10 CM 2 19 21 22 25 28
11-20CM2 2 3 5 3 0
21-30CM2 2 2 28.60 1 61.30 0 77.70 0 92.50
31-40CM2 3 2 0 0 0
41-50CM2 2 0 0 0 0
TOTAL 28 28 28 28 28
T.G- Trial Group, C.G- Control Group, P*= percentage of improvement.
It has been observed that out of 28 patients of trial group 19(67.85%) patients
having in the group of 0-10 sq.cm, 2(7.15%) patients were having in group 11-20
sq.cm, 21-30 sq.cm and 41-50 sq.cm and 3(10.71%) patients were having 31-40
sq.cm before treatment.
After 7 days treatments out of 28 patients of trial group 21(75%) patients were
having in the group of 0-10 sq.cm, 3(10.71%) patients were having in the group of 11-
20 sq.cm, 2 (7.15%) patients were having in the group of 21-30 sq.cm and 2(7.15%)
were having in the group of 31-40 sq.cm and no patients were having in the group of
41-50 sq.cm.
After 14 days treatments out of 28 patients of trial group 22 (78.57%) patients

were having in the group of 0-10 sq.cm, 5 (17.85%) patients were having in the group
of 11-20 sq.cm, 1 (3.57%) patient was having in the group of 21-30 sq.cm and no
patients were having in the group of 31-40 sq.cm and 41-50 sq.cm. After 21 days
treatments out of 28 patients of trial group 25 (89.28%) patients were having in the
group of 0-10 sq.cm, 3 (10.71%) patients were having in the group of 11-20 sq.cm,
and no patients were having in the group of 21-30 sq.cm, 31-40 sq.cm and 41-50
sq.cm. After 28 days of treatments, all patients were having in the group of 0-10
sq.cm.
Average percentage of improvement after 7 days, 14 days, 21 days and 28

days of treatment were 28.60%, 61.30%, 77.70% and 92.50% respectively.
TABLE-22: SHOWING THE SIZE OF THE WOUND WITH % OF

IMPROVEMENT IN GR-C
SIZE OF THE
WOUND IN
CM2 BT(f) AT1 P* AT2 P* AT3 P* AT4 P*
2
0-10 CM 7 8 8 12 12
11-20CM2 1 2 2 0 0
21-30CM2 3 1 29.55 1 56.46 0 85.23 0 94.76
31-40CM2 1 1 1 0 0
2
41-50CM 0 0 0 0 0
TOTAL 12 12 12 12 12
T.G- Trial Group, C.G- Control Group, P*= percentage of improvement
It has been observed that out of 12 patients of control group 7 (58.33%)

patients having in the group of 0-10 sq.cm, 1 (8.33%) patient was having in group 11-
20 sq.cm, 3 (25%) patients were having in the group of 21-30 sq.cm and 1 (8.33%)
patient was having in the group of 41-50 sq.cm and no patients were having 31-40
sq.cm. before treatment. After 7 days treatments out of 12 patients of control group 8
(66.67%) patients were having in the group of 0-10 sq.cm, 2 (16.67%) patients were
having in the group of 11-20 sq.cm, 1 (8.33%) patient was having in the group of 21-
30 sq.cm and 1 (8.33%) was having in the group of 31-40 sq.cm and no patients were
having in the group of 41-50 sq.cm.
After 14 days treatments out of 12 patients of control group 8 (66.67%)

patients were having in the group of 0-10 sq.cm, 2 (16.67%) patients were having in
the group of 11-20 sq.cm, 1 (8.33%) patient was having in the group of 21-30 sq.cm,
31-40 sq.cm and no patients were having in the group of 41-50 sq.cm. After 21 days
and 28 days of treatments, all patients were having in the group of 0-10 sq.cm.
Average percentage of improvement after 7 days, 14 days, 21 days and 28

days of treatment were 29.55%, 56.46%, 85.23% and 94.76% respectively.
TABLE -23(A): SHOWING THE DEGREE OF SEVERITY /RELIEF OF

SIGN& SYMPTOMS OF BT & AT IN GR-T
Sign AT1 AT2 AT3 AT4

& BT
Sympt
oms
G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G
1 2 3 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3
PAIN 1 1 1 1 1 1 2
0 1 7 0 1 8 9 8 9 1 0 2 6 0 0 0 8 0 0
TENDE 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2
RNESS 0 5 3 0 0 5 3 0 2 6 0 0 7 1 0 2 6 0 0
DISCH 1 1 1 1 1 1 2
ARGE 3 6 9 1 0 5 2 8 3 7 0 6 2 0 0 2 6 0 0
SLOUG 1 1 1 1 1 1 2
H 0 4 4 0 8 5 5 7 1 9 1 0 4 4 0 0 7 1 0
GRAN
ULATI
ON 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
TISSUE 0 6 2 0 0 4 4 0 1 3 4 1 5 2 0 2 1 5 0
SCAR
FORM 1 1 1 1 1 1 2
ATION 0 5 3 0 8 6 4 4 3 0 1 5 7 6 0 5 0 3 0
TABLE -23(B): SHOWING THE DEGREE OF SEVERITY/RELIEF OF SIGN

& SYMPTOMS OF BT & AT IN GR-C
AT1 AT2 AT3 AT4

Sign & BT
Symptoms
G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G G
1 2 3 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3 0 1 2 3
PAIN 1
0 2 0 0 0 9 3 0 9 3 0 5 7 0 0 9 3 0 0
TENDERNE
SS 0 7 5 0 2 9 1 2 8 2 0 8 4 0 0 9 3 0 0
DISCHARG 1 1
E 1 6 5 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 0 6 6 0 0 7 5 0 0
1
SLOUGH 0 4 8 0 0 0 2 0 7 5 0 5 7 0 0 9 3 0 0
GRANULAT 1 1
ION TISSUE 0 0 2 0 0 4 8 0 2 9 1 0 0 2 0 6 4 2 0
SCAR
FORMATIO 1 1
N 0 2 0 0 0 1 1 0 6 6 0 4 7 1 0 4 7 1 0
presence of degree of severity of sign& symptoms of the patients in trial and control
group.
TRIAL GROUP:
Severity of pain: Under the grade G1, G2 and G3 the number of the patients were
found to be 0, 11 and 17 respectively before treatment. After 7days of treatment, the
numbers of the patients were found to be 0, 11, 8 and 9 under the grade G0, G1, G2,
and G3 respectively. After 14days of treatment, the numbers of the patients were
found to be 8, 9, 11 and 0 under the grade G0, G1, G2 and G3 respectively. After
21days of treatment, the numbers of the patients were found to be 12, 16, 0 and 0
under the grade G0, G1, G2 and G3 respectively. After 28days of treatment, the
numbers of the patients were found to be 20, 8, 0 and 0 under the grade G0, G1, G2
and G3 respectively.
Severity of tenderness: Under the grade G1, G2 and G3 the number of the patients
were found to be 0, 15 and 13 respectively before treatment. After 7days of treatment,
the numbers of the patients were found to be 0, 10, 15, and 3 under the grade G0, G1,
G2 and G3 respectively. After 14days of treatment, the numbers of the patients were
found to be 10, 12, 6and 0 under the grade G0, G1, G2 and G3 respectively. After
21days of treatment, the numbers of the patients were found to be 20, 7, 1 and 0 under
the grade G0, G1, G2 and G3 respectively. After 28 days of treatment, the numbers of
the patients were found to be 22, 6, 0 and 0 under the grade G0, G1, G2 and G3
respectively.
Severity of discharge: Under the grade G1, G2 and G3 the number of the patients
the numbers of the patients were found to be 1, 10, 15 and 2 under the grade G0, G1,
G2 and G3 respectively. After 14days of treatment, the numbers of the patients were
Severity of slough: Under the grade G1, G2 and G3 the number of the patients were
and G3 respectively. After 14days of treatment, the numbers of the patients were
Severity of granulation tissue: Under the grade G1, G2 and G3 the numbers of the
patients were found to be 0, 6 and 22 respectively before treatment. After 7days of
treatment, the numbers of the patients were found to be 0, 0, 14 and 14 under the
grade G0, G1, G2 and G3 respectively.
After 14days of treatment, the numbers of the patients were found to be0, 11,
13 and 4 under the grade G0, G1, G2 and G3 respectively. After 21days of treatment,
G2 and G3 respectively. After 28 days of treatment, the numbers of the patients were
found to be 12, 11, 5 and 0 under the grade G0, G1, G2 and G3respectively.
Severity of scar formation: Under the grade G1, G2 and G3 the numbers of the
treatment, the numbers of the patients were found to be 0, 8, 16 and 4 under the grade
G0, G1, G2 and G3 respectively. After 14 days of treatment, the numbers of the
patients were found to be 4, 13, 10 and 1 under the grade G0, G1, G2 and G3
respectively. After 21 days of treatment, the numbers of the patients were found to be
5, 17, 6 and 0 under the grade G0, G1, G2 and G3 respectively. After 21 days of
G0, G1, G2 and G3 respectively.
CONTROL GROUP:
Severity of pain: Under the grade G1, G2 and G3 the numbers of the patients were
numbers of the patients were found to be 0, 0, 9 and 3 under the grade G0, G1, G2 and
G3 respectively. After 14 days of treatment, the numbers of the patients were found to
be 0, 9, 3 and 0 under the grade G0, G1, G2 and G3 respectively. After 21 days of
respectively.
Severity of tenderness: Under the grade G1, G2, G3 and G4 the numbers of the
patients were found to be 2, 8, 2 and 0 under the grade G0, G1, G2 and
G3respectively. After 21days of treatment, the numbers of the patients were found to
be 8, 4, 0 and 0 under the grade G0, G1, G2 and G3 respectively. After 28 days of
Severity of discharge: Under the grade G1, G2 and G3 the numbers of the patients
G2 and G3 respectively. After 14 days of treatment, the numbers of the patients were
21days of treatment, the numbers of the patients were found to be 6, 6 and 0 under the
grade G0, G1, G2 and G3 respectively. After 28 days of treatment, the numbers of the
respectively.
Severity of slough: Under the grade G1, G2 and G3 the number of the patients were
and G3 respectively. After 14 days of treatment, the numbers of the patients were
found to be 0, 7, 5 and 0 under the grade G0, G1, G2 and G3 respectively. After 21
days of treatment, the numbers of the patients were found to be 5, 7, 0 and 0 under the
grade G0, G1, G2 and G3 respectively. After 28 days of treatment, the numbers of the
respectively.
Severity of granulation tissue: Under the grade G1, G2 and G3 the number of the
Severity of scar formation: Under the grade G1, G2 and G3 the numbers of the
TABLE-24: SHOWING THE CLINICAL ASSESSMENT OF RESULT IN TRIAL

& CONTROL GROUP (N=40)
AT1 AT2 AT3 AT4
GR-T GR-C GR-T GR-C GR-T GR-C GR-T GR-C

IMPROVEM f % f % f % f % f % f % f % f %
ENT
CURE 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 1 3.5 1 8.3
1 42. 58. 2 78. 1 91.
0 0.0 0 0.0 7 25
MAXIMUM 0 0 2 86 7 33 2 57 1 67
MODETRAT 3.5 25. 58. 1 53. 41. 17.
1 0 0.0 7 5
E 7 00 7 33 5 57 5 67 86 0 0
1 42. 41. 1 46. 41. 3.5
5 1 0 0.0
MILD 2 86 67 3 43 5 67 7 0 0 0 0
UNSATISFA 1 53. 58. 3.5
7 1 0 0.0 0 0.0
CTORY 5 57 33 7 0 0 0 0 0 0
T.G- TRIAL GROUP, C.G- CONTROL GROUP, f= frequency, %=percentage,
N=number of patients.
N.B. Above the analysis has been made from all the sign & symptoms and size of the
assessment scale.
Clinical assessment based on the percentage improvement of the burn wound

depending upon the sign & symptoms and size i.e. cure= 100%, maximum
improvement= 75% - 99%, moderate improvement=50% - 74%, mild improvement=
25% - 49% and unsatisfactory= 0 to 24%.
16
14
12
10
8
6 AT1 IMPROVEMENT
4
2 AT1 GR-T f
0
AT1 GR-C f
(FIGURE NO.20)
Figure no.20 shows that, from the clinical analysis out of 28 patients in trial
group after 7 days treatment no patients having maximum and total cured, 1(3.57%)
patient got moderate improvement, 12 (42.86%) were got mild improvement and 15
(53.57%) were got unsatisfactory result. In control group out of 12 patients no patients
having moderate, maximum and total cured, 5 (41.67%) were got mild improvement
and 7 (58.33%) were got unsatisfactory result.
14
12
10
8
6 AT2 IMPROVEMENT
4
2 AT2 GR-T f
0
AT2 GR-C f
(FIGURE NO.21)
group after 14 days treatment no patients were total cured, 7 (25%) were got
maximum improvement, 7 (25%) were got moderate improvement, 13 (42.86%) were
got mild improvement and 1 (3.57%)patient got unsatisfactory result. In control group
out of 12 patients no patients having unsatisfactory result, maximum and total cured, 7
(58.33%) were got moderate improvement and 5 (41.67%) were got mild
improvement.
16
14
12
10
8
6 AT3 IMPROVEMENT
4
2 AT3 GR-T f
0
AT3 GR-C f
(FIGURE NO.22)
group after 21 days treatment no patients having unsatisfactory result and total cured,
12 (42.86%) were got maximum improvement, 15 (53.57%) were got moderate
improvement and 1 (3.57%)patient got mild improvement. In control group out of 12
patients no patients having unsatisfactory result, mild improvement and total cured, 7
(58.33%) were got maximum improvement and 5 (41.67%) were got moderate
improvement.
25
20
15
10 AT4 IMPROVEMENT
5
AT4 GR-T f
0
AT4 GR-C f
(FIGURE NO.23)
group after 28 days treatment no patients having unsatisfactory result, mild
improvement. 1 (3.57%) patient got total cured, 22 (78.57%) were got maximum
improvement and 5 (17.86%) were got moderate improvement. In control group out of
12 patients no patients having unsatisfactory result, mild improvement and moderate
improvement. 1 (8.33%) patient got total cured, 11 (91.67%) were got maximum
improvement.
TABLE-25: Statistical analysis showing the effectiveness of the trial& control

group to sign& symptoms after treatment
Sign
Diff±SD
Remark
p-value
Sl.
t-value
&
Group
Mean
d.f.
Mean±SD
No. Sympt
oms
BT 2.61±0.50
1 AT1 1.93±0.86 0.68±0.48 27 7.55 <0.001 ***
GROUP T
AT2 1.11±0.83 1.46±0.51 27 15.26 <0.001 ***

AT3 0.57±0.50 2.04±0.43 27 25.12 <0.001 ***
AT4 0.29±0.46 2.32±0.67 27 18.34 <0.001 ***
PAIN
BT 2.83±0.39
AT1 2.25±0.45 0.58±0.51 11 3.92 <0.005 **
GROUP C
AT2 1.25±0.45 1.58±0.51 11 10.65 <0.001 ***

AT3 0.58±0.51 2.25±0.62 11 12.54 <0.001 ***
AT4 0.25±0.45 2.58±0.51 11 17.38 <0.001 ***
BT 2.46±0.51
AT1 1.75±0.65 0.71±0.53 27 7.07 <0.001 ***
GROUP T
AT2 0.86±0.76 1.61±0.57 27 15 <0.001 ***

AT3 0.32±0.55 2.14±0.52 27 21.62 <0.001 ***
TENDERNESS
AT4 0.21±0.42 2.25±0.59 27 20.34 <0.001 ***

2
BT 2.42±0.51
AT1 1.92±0.51 0.50±0.52 11 3.32 <0.01 **
GROUP C
AT2 1.00±0.60 1.42±0.51 11 9.53 <0.001 ***

AT3 0.33±0.49 2.08±0.51 11 14.02 <0.001 ***
AT4 0.25±0.45 2.17±0.58 11 13.00 <0.001 ***
BT 2.21±0.63
AT1 1.64±0.68 0.57±0.50 27 6.00 <0.001 ***
GROUP T
AT2 0.96±0.74 1.25±0.65 27 10.25 <0.001 ***

DISCHARGE
AT3 0.43±0.50 1.79±0.57 27 16.63 <0.001 ***

3 AT4 0.21±0.42 2.00±0.72 27 14.70 <0.001 ***
BT 2.33±0.65
GROUP C
AT1 2.00±0.43 0.33±0.49 11 2.35 <0.05 *

AT2 1.08±0.29 1.25±0.62 11 6.97 <0.001 ***
AT3 0.50±0.52 1.83±0.72 11 8.85 <0.001 ***
AT4 0.42±0.51 1.92±0.79 11 8.37 <0.001 ***

12.89±12.3
BT
3
GROUP T
AT1 8.90±8.70 4.00±4.17 27 5.08 <0.001 ***
AT2 5.69±6.43 7.21±6.20 27 6.15 <0.001 ***
SIZE OF THE WOUND
AT3 3.29±3.96 9.61±8.64 27 5.88 <0.001 ***
AT4 1.16±1.70 11.73±10.97 27 5.66 <0.001 ***

4
15.58±12.8
BT
5
GROUP C
AT1 10.75±9.14 4.83±4.61 11 3.63 <0.005 **

AT2 7.17±7.00 8.42±6.65 11 4.38 <0.001 ***
AT3 2.75±3.45 12.83±10.04 11 4.43 <0.001 ***
AT4 1.29±1.79 14.29±11.19 11 4.42 <0.001 ***
BT 2.50±0.51
AT1 1.89±0.69 0.61±0.50 27 6.46 <0.001 ***
GROUP T
AT2 1.14±0.85 1.36±0.62 27 11.56 <0.001 ***

AT3 0.79±0.69 1.71±0.60 27 15.12 <0.001 ***
SLOUGH
AT4 0.32±0.55 2.18±0.72 27 15.95 <0.001 ***

5
BT 2.67±0.49
AT1 2.17±0.39 0.50±0.52 11 3.32 <0.005 **
GROUP C
AT2 1.42±0.51 1.25±0.45 11 9.57 <0.001 ***

AT3 0.58±0.51 2.08±0.51 11 14.02 <0.001 ***
AT4 0.25±0.45 2.42±0.67 11 12.52 <0.001 ***
BT 2.79±0.42
AT1 2.50±0.51 0.29±0.46 27 3.29 <0.005 **
GROUP T
GRANULATION TISSUE
AT2 1.75±0.70 1.04±0.58 27 9.51 <0.001 ***

AT3 1.39±0.57 1.39±0.50 27 14.82 <0.001 ***
AT4 0.75±0.75 2.04±0.69 27 15.55 <0.001 ***
6 BT 3.00±0.00
AT1 2.67±0.49 0.33±0.49 11 2.35 <0.05 *
GROUP C
AT2 1.92±0.51 1.08±0.51 11 7.29 <0.001 ***

AT3 1.17±0.39 1.83±0.39 11 16.32 <0.001 ***
AT4 0.67±0.78 2.83±0.78 11 10.38 <0.001 ***
BT 2.46±0.51
AT1 1.86±0.65 0.61±0.50 27 6.46 <0.001 ***
GROUP T
AT2 1.29±0.76 1.18±0.61 27 10.19 <0.001 ***
SCAR FORMATION
AT3 1.04±0.64 1.43±0.50 27 15 <0.001 ***
AT4 0.93±0.54 1.54±0.51 27 16.00 <0.001 ***
BT 2.83±0.39
7
AT1 2.08±0.29 0.75±0.45 11 5.74 <0.001 ***
GROUP C
AT2 1.50±0.52 1.33±0.65 11 7.09 <0.001 ***

AT3 0.75±0.62 2.08±0.67 11 10.79 <0.001 ***
AT4 0.75±0.62 2.08±0.67 11 10.79 <0.001 ***
*= significant at 5%, **= significant at 0.5%, 1% level, ***=highly significant at

0.1%, d.f= degree of freedom, T.G=Trial group, C.G=Control group
In order to assess the pain the patients of each group were examined and
according to the clinical findings the result was analysed from the statistical analysis,
in trial group (group T) Mean± S.D.
Before treatment of pain of the wound was 2.61± 0.50. After 7 days of
treatment it was reduced to 1.93±0.86.the mean difference± S.D. After 7 days of
treatment was 0.68± 0.48. The test of significance shows that the effectiveness of trial
drugs is highly significant with p-value <0.001. After 14 days of treatment it was
reduced to 1.11±0.83.the mean difference± S.D after 14 days of treatment was
1.46±0.51. The test of significance shows that the effectiveness of trial drugs is highly
significant with p-value <0.001.
After 21 days of treatment it was reduced to 0.57±0.50.the mean difference±

S.D after 21 days of treatment was 2.04±0.43. The test of significance shows that the
effectiveness of trial drugs is highly significant with p-value <0.001. After 28 days of
treatment it was reduced to 0.29±0.46.the mean difference± S.D after 28 days of
treatment was 2.32±0.67. The test of significance shows that the effectiveness of trial
drugs is highly significant with p-value <0.001.
Before treatment of pain of the wound was 2.83± 0.39. After 7 days of
treatment it was reduced to 2.25±0.45.the mean difference± S.D, after 7 days of
treatment was 0.58± 0.51. The test of significance shows that the effectiveness of
control drugs is significant with p-value <0.005. After 14 days of treatment it was
reduced to1.25±0.45.the mean difference± S.D after 14 days of treatment was
1.58±0.51. The test of significance shows that the effectiveness of control drugs is
highly significant with p-value <0.001. After 21 days of treatment it was reduced to
0.58±0.51.the mean difference± S.D, after 21 days of treatment was 2.25±0.62. The
test of significance shows that the effectiveness of control drugs is highly significant
with p-value <0.001. After 28 days of treatment it was reduced to 0.25±0.45.the mean
difference± S.D, after 28 days of treatment was 2.58±0.51. The test of significance
shows that the effectiveness of control drugs is highly significant with p-value <0.001.
Before treatment of tenderness was 2.46±0.51. After 7 days of treatment it was

reduced to 1.75±0.65.the mean difference± S.D after 7 days of treatment was 0.71±
0.53. The test of significance shows that the effectiveness of trial drugs is highly
significant with p-value <0.001. After 14 days of treatment it was reduced to
0.86±0.76the mean difference± S.D after 14 days of treatment was 1.61±0.57. The test
of significance shows that the effectiveness of trial drugs is highly significant with p-
value <0.001. After21 days of treatment it was reduced to 0.32±0.55.the mean
difference± S.D after 21 days of treatment was 2.14±0.52. The test of significance
shows that the effectiveness of trial drugs is highly significant with p-value <0.001.
After28 days of treatment it was reduced to 0.21±0.42.the mean difference± S.D, after
28 days of treatment was 2.25±0.59.The test of significance shows that the
effectiveness of trial drugs is highly significant with p-value <0.001.
Before treatment of tenderness was 2.42± 0.51. After 7 days of treatment it

was reduced to 1.92±0.51.the mean difference± S.D, after 7 days of treatment was
0.50± 0.52. The test of significance shows that the effectiveness of control drugs is
significant with p-value <0.01. After14 days of treatment it was reduced
to1.00±0.60.the mean difference± S.D. After 14 days of treatment was 1.42±0.51.
The test of significance shows that the effectiveness of control drugs is highly
significant with p-value <0.001. After21 days of treatment it was reduced to
0.33±0.49.the mean difference± S.D, after 21 days of treatment was 2.08±0.51.The
with p-value <0.001. After28 days of treatment it was reduced to 0.25±0.45.the mean
difference± S.D, after 28 days of treatment was 2.17±0.58.The test of significance

Before treatment of discharge of the wound was 2.21± 0.63. After 7 days of
reduced to 0.96±0.74 the mean difference± S.D, after 14 days of treatment was
0.43±0.50. The mean difference± S.D after 21 days of treatment was 1.79±0.57. The
test of significance shows that the effectiveness of trial drugs is highly significant with
p-value <0.001. After 28 days of treatment it was reduced to 0.21±0.42.the mean
Before treatment discharge of the wound was 2.33± 0.65. After 7 days of
treatment it was reduced to 2.00±0.43.the mean difference± S.D. after 7 days of
control drugs is significant with p-value <0.05. After14 days of treatment it was
reduced to1.08±0.29.the mean difference± S.D. after 14 days of treatment was
0.50±0.52.the mean difference± S.D, after 21 days of treatment was 1.83±0.72.
with p-value <0.001.
Before treatment of size of the wound was 12.89± 12.33. After 7 days of
reduced to 5.69± 6.43 the mean difference± S.D, after 14 days of treatment was
significant with p-value <0.001. After 21 days of treatment it was reduced to 3.29±
3.96.the mean difference± S.D. after 21 days of treatment was 9.61±8.64. The test of
significance shows that the effectiveness of trial drugs is highly significant with p-
value <0.001. After 28 days of treatment it was reduced to 1.16± 1.70.the mean
difference± S.D, after 28 days of treatment was 11.73±10.97. The test of significance
Before treatment size of the wound was 15.58±12.85. After 7 days of

treatment it was reduced to 10.75± 9.14.the mean difference± S.D, after 7 days of
control drugs is significant with p-value <0.005. After 14 days of treatment it was
reduced to7.17± 7.00.the mean difference± S.D. after 14 days of treatment was
with p-value <0.001.
After28 days of treatment it was reduced to 1.29±1.79.the mean difference±

S.D. after 28 days of treatment was 14.29±11.19. The test of significance shows that
the effectiveness of control drugs is highly significant with p-value <0.001.
Before treatment of slough of the wound was 2.50± 0.51. After 7 days of
reduced to 1.14± 0.85 the mean difference± S.D. after 14 days of treatment was
significant with p-value <0.001.
After 21 days of treatment it was reduced to 0.79± 0.69.the mean difference±

treatment it was reduced to 0.32± 0.55.the mean difference± S.D after 28 days of
Before treatment of slough of the wound was 2.67± 0.49. After 7 days of
treatment it was reduced to 2.17±0.39.the mean difference± S.D after 7 days of
control drugs is highly significant with p-value <0.005. After 14 days of treatment it
was reduced to 1.42± 0.51 the mean difference± S.D after 14 days of treatment was
0.58± 0.51.the mean difference± S.D after 21 days of treatment was 2.08±0.51. The
with p-value <0.001. After 28 days of treatment it was reduced to 0.25± 0.45.the mean
difference± S.D. after 28 days of treatment was 2.42±0.67. The test of significance
Before treatment of granulation tissue formation of the wound was 2.79±0.42.

After 7 days of treatment it was reduced to 2.50±0.51.the mean difference± S.D after
7 days of treatment was 0. 29± 0.46. The test of significance shows that the
treatment it was reduced to 1.75± 0.70 the mean difference± S.D after 14 days of
After 21 days of treatment it was reduced to 1.39± 0.57, the mean difference±
treatment it was reduced to 0.75± 0.75.the mean difference± S.D after 28 days of
Before treatment of granulation tissue formation of the wound was 3.00± 0.00.
After 7 days of treatment it was reduced to 2.75±0.45.the mean difference± S.D. After
7 days of treatment was 0.25±0.45.
significant with p-value <0.05. After 14 days of treatment it was reduced to 2.00± 0.60
the mean difference± S.D. After 14 days of treatment was 1.00±0.60. The test of
significance shows that the effectiveness of control drugs is highly significant with p-
After 28 days of treatment it was reduced to 1.17± 0.39.the mean difference± S.D
after 21 days of treatment was 1.83±0.39. The test of significance shows that the
effectiveness of control drugs is highly significant with p-value <0.001.
Before treatment of scar formation of the wound was 2.46±0.51. After 7 days
of treatment it was reduced to 1.86±0.65.the mean difference± S.D after 7 days of
reduced to 1.29± 0.76 the mean difference± S.D after 14 days of treatment was
0.64.the mean difference± S.D after 21 days of treatment was 1.43±0.50. The test of
significance shows that the effectiveness of trial drugs is highly significant with p-
Before treatment of scar formation of the wound was 2.83± 0.39. After 7 days
of treatment it was reduced to 2.08±0.29.the mean difference± S.D. After 7 days of
treatment was 0.75±0.45. The test of significance shows that the effectiveness of
control drugs is highly significant with p-value <0.05. After 14 days of treatment it
was reduced to 1.50± 0.52 the mean difference± S.D after 14 days of treatment was
0.75± 0.62.the mean difference± S.D after 21 days of treatment was 2.08±0.67.
0.62.the mean difference± S.D after 28 days of treatment was 2.08±0.67. The test of
significance shows that the effectiveness of control drugs is highly significant with p-
value <0.001.
Line chart showing the mean value before & after treatment
PAIN
2.5
1.5 GROUP T
GROUP C
1
0.5
0
BT AT1 AT2 AT3 AT4
(FIGURE NO.24)
TENDERENESS
3 GROUP C
GROUP T
2
0
BT AT1 AT2 AT3 AT4
(FIGURE NO.25)
DISCHARGE
2.5
1.5
GROUP T
1
GROUP C
0.5
0
BT AT1 AT2 AT3 AT4
(FIGURE NO.26)
SIZE OF THE WOUND
20
15
10 GROUP T
GROUP C
5
0
BT AT1 AT2 AT3 AT4
(FIGURE NO.27)
SLOUGH
3
2.5
2
1.5 GROUP T
1 GROUP C
0.5
0
BT AT1 AT2 AT3 AT4
(FIGURE NO.28)
GRANULATION TISSUE
7
6
5
4
GROUP C
3
GROUP T
2
1
0
BT AT1 AT2 AT3 AT4
(FIGURE NO.29)
SCAR FORMATION
3
2.5
2
1.5 GROUP T
1 GROUP C
0.5
0
BT AT1 AT2 AT3 AT4
(FIGURE NO.30)
TABLE-26: Statistical analysis showing the effectiveness of the trial& control

group w.r.t sign& symptoms after treatment
Sl. Sign & Mean t-

Group
d.f. p-value Remark

No. Symptom Diff±SD value
T AT1 0.68±0.48
38 0.55 >0.05 #
C 0.58±0.51
PAIN
1 T 1.46±0.51
AT2 38 0.67 >0.05 #
C 1.58±0.51
T AT3 2.04±0.43 38 1.09 >0.05 #
C 2.25±0.62
T 2.32±0.67
AT4 38 1.34 >0.05 #
C 2.58±0.51
T 0.71±0.53
AT1 38 1.18 >0.05 #
C 0.50±0.52
T 1.61±0.57
TENDERNESS
AT2 38 1.04 >0.05 #

C 1.42±0.51
2
T 2.14±0.52
AT3 38 0.33 >0.05 #
C 2.08±0.51
T 2.25±0.59
AT4 38 0.42 >0.05 #
C 2.17±0.58
T 0.57±0.50
AT1 38 1.39 >0.05 #
C 0.33±0.49
T 1.25±0.65
DISCHARGE
AT2 38 0.00 >0.05 #

C 1.25±0.62
3
T 1.79±0.57
AT3 38 0.20 >0.05 #
C 1.83±0.72
T 2.00±0.72
AT4 38 0.31 >0.05 #
C 1.92±0.79
T 4.00±4.17
AT1 38 0.54 >0.05 #
C 4.83±4.61
T 7.21±6.20
AT2 38 0.54 >0.05 #
WOUND C 8.42±6.65
4
SIZE T 9.61±8.64
AT3 38 0.97 >0.05 #
C 12.83±10.04
T 11.73±10.97
AT4 38 0.67 >0.05 #
C 14.29±11.19
T 0.61±0.50
AT1 38 0.60 >0.05 #
C 0.50±0.52
T 1.36±0.62
AT2 38 0.61 >0.05 #
SLOUGH
C 1.25±0.45
5
T 1.71±0.60
AT3 38 1.97 >0.05 #
C 2.08±0.51
T 2.18±0.72
AT4 38 1.01 >0.05 #
C 2.42±0.67
T 0. 29±0.46
AT1 38 0.29 >0.05 #
C 0.33±0.49
GRANULATION TISSUE
T 1.04±0.58
AT2 38 >0.05 #
C 1.08±0.51 0.26
6
T 1.39±0.50
AT3 38 3.01 <0.005 **
C 1.83±0.39
T 2.04±0.69
AT4 38 1.14 >0.05 #
C 2.33±0.78
T 0.61±0.50
AT1 38 0.89 >0.05
C 0.75±0.45 #
SCAR FORMATION
T 1.18±0.61
>0.05
C AT2 1.33±0.65 38 0.7 #
7
T 1.43±0.50
C AT3 2.08±0.67 38 3.04 <0.01 **
T 1.54±0.51
**
C AT4 2.08±0.67 38 2.54 <0.02
# = insignificant at 5%, *= significant at 2% level, **=significant at 1%, d.f= degree

of freedom, T.G= Trial group, C.G=Control group.
In order to assess the pain the patients of each group were examined and
according to the clinical finding of the result was analysed from the statistical
analysis, the mean diff± S.D in after 7days of treatment of the trial group was
0.68±0.48 as compared to control group it was 0.58±0.51. The above statistical
analysis shows that the difference between trial and control group is insignificant with
p-value >0.05. Test of significance shows that, both trial and control drugs are almost
equally effective reducing pain of the wound. After 14 days of treatment the mean
diff± S.D of the trial group was 1.46±0.51 as compared to control 1.58±0.51. The
above statistical analysis shows that the difference between trial and control group is
insignificant with p-value >0.05. Test of significance shows that, both trial and control
drugs are almost equally effective reducing pain of the wound.
After 21 days of treatment the mean diff± S.D of the trial group was 2.04±0.43
as compared to control 2.25±0.62. The above statistical analysis shows that the
difference between trial and control group is insignificant with p-value >0.05.
Test of significance shows that, both trial and control drug are almost equally
effective reducing pain of the wound. After 28 days of treatment the mean diff± S.D
of the trial group was 2.32±0.67 as compared to control 2.58±0.51. The above
statistical analysis shows that the difference between trial and control group is
drugs are almost equally effective reducing pain of the wound.
In order to assess the tenderness the patients of each group were examined and
0.71±0.53 as compared to control group it was 0.50±0.52. The statistical analysis
shows that the difference between trial and control group is insignificant with p-value
>0.05. Test of significance shows that, both trial and control drugs are almost equally
effective reducing tenderness of the wound. After 14 days of treatment the mean diff±
S.D of the trial group was 1.61±0.57 as compared to control 1.42±0.51. The above
drugs are almost equally effective reducing tenderness of the wound.
difference between trial and control group is insignificant with p-value >0.05. Test of
significance shows that, both trial and control drugs are almost equally effective
reducing tenderness of the wound. After 28 days of treatment the mean diff± S.D of
the trial group was 2.25±0.59 as compared to control 2.17±0.58. The above statistical
equally effective reducing tenderness of the wound.
In order to assess the discharge the patients of each group were examined and
0.57±0.50 as compared to control group it was 0.33±0.49.
The above statistical analysis shows that the difference between trial and
control group is insignificant with p-value >0.05.
Test of significance shows that, both trial and control drugs are almost equally
effective reducing discharge of the wound. After 14 days of treatment the mean diff±
drugs are almost equally effective reducing discharge of the wound.
After 21 days of treatment the mean diff± S.D of the trial group was1.79±0.57
reducing discharge of the wound. After 28 days of treatment the mean diff± S.D of the
trial group was 2.00±0.72 as compared to control 1.92±0.79.The above statistical
equally effective reducing discharge of the wound.
In order to assess the size of the wound, the patients of each group were
examined and according to the clinical finding of the result was analysed from the
statistical analysis, the mean diff± S.D in after 7days of treatment of the trial group
was 4.00±4.17 as compared to control group it was 4.83±4.61. The above statistical
equally effective reducing size of the wound. After 14 days of treatment the mean
drugs are almost equally effective reducing size of the wound.
After 21 days of treatment the mean diff± S.D of the trial group was9.61±8.64
reducing size of the wound. After 28 days of treatment the mean diff± S.D of the trial
group was 11.73±10.97 as compared to control 14.29±11.19.
The above statistical analysis shows that the difference between trial and
control group is insignificant with p-value >0.05. Test of significance shows that, both
trial and control drugs are almost equally effective reducing size of the wound.
In order to assess the slough of the wound, the patients of each group were
examined and according to the clinical finding of the result was analysed from the
statistical analysis, the mean diff± S.D in after 7days of treatment of the trial group
equally effective reducing size of the wound. After 14 days of treatment the mean
drugs are almost equally effective reducing slough formation of the wound.
reducing slough formation of the wound. After 28 days of treatment the mean diff±
drugs are almost equally effective reducing slough formation of the wound.
In order to assess the granulation tissue formation of the wound, the patients of
each group were examined and according to the clinical finding of the result was
analysed from the statistical analysis, the mean diff± S.D in after 7days of treatment of
the trial group was 0.29±0.46 as compared to control group it was 0.33±0.49. The
drugs are almost equally effective for granulation tissue formation of the wound.
significance shows that, both trial and control drugs are almost equally effective for
granulation tissue formation of the wound.
difference between trial and control group is significant with p-value <0.005. Test of
significance shows that, the control drug is more effective than trial drug for
granulation tissue formation of the wound. After 28 days of treatment the mean diff±
drugs are almost equally effective for granulation tissue formation of the wound.
In order to assess the scar formation of the wound, the patients of each group
were examined and according to the clinical finding of the result was analysed from
the statistical analysis, the mean diff± S.D in after 7days of treatment of the trial group
equally effective reducing scar formation of the wound. After 14 days of treatment the
mean diff± S.D of the trial group was 1.18±0.61 as compared to control 1.33±0.65.
The above statistical analysis shows that the difference between trial and control
group is insignificant with p-value >0.05. Test of significance shows that, both trial
and control drugs are almost equally effective reducing scar formation of the wound.
difference between trial and control group is significant with p-value <0.01. Test of
significance shows that, the control drug is more effective than trial drug reducing scar
formation. After 28 days of treatment the mean diff± S.D of the trial group was
1.54±0.51 as compared to control 2.08±0.67. The above statistical analysis shows that
the difference between trial and control group is significant with p-value <0.02. Test
of significance shows that, the control drug is more effective than trial drug reducing
scar formation.

6.result and Observation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

You might also like

6.result and Observation

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

6.result and Observation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Observations & Results

TABLE-1: SHOWING THE INCIDENCE OF AGE OF THE PATIENTS

AGE GROUP NO. OF PATIENTS PERCENTAGE (%)

The above table shows that out of 45 patients of durdagdha,1(2.22 %) patient

TABLE-2: SHOWING THE INCIDENCE OF SEX OF THE PATIENTS (N= 45)

SEX NO. OF PATIENTS PERCENTAGE (%)

TABLE-3: SHOWING THE INCIDENCE OF MARITAL STATUS OF THE

MARITAL NO. OF PATIENTS PERCENTAGE (%)

INCIDENCE OF MARITAL STATUS

TABLE-4: SHOWING THE INCIDENCE OF EDUCATIONAL STATUS OF

EDUCATIONAL NO. OF PATIENTS PERCENTAGE (%)

INCIDENCE OF EDUCATIONAL STATUS

TABLE-5: SHOWING THE INCIDENCE OF ECONOMICAL STATUS OF

ECONOMICAL STATUS NO. OF PATIENTS PERCENTAGE (%)

INCIDENCE OF ECONOMICAL STATUS

TABLE-6: SHOWING THE INCIDENCE OF HABITAT OF THE PATIENTS (N=45)

HABITAT NO. OF PATIENTS PERCENTAGE (%)

TABLE-7: SHOWING THE INCIDENCE OF DIETARY HABIT OF THE PATIENTS

DIETARY HABIT NO. OF PATIENTS PERCENTAGE (%)

INCIDENCE OF DIETARY HABIT

TABLE-8: SHOWING THE INCIDENCE OF CAUSE OF INJURY OF THE

CAUSE OF NO. OF PATIENTS PERCENTAGE (%)

INCIDENCE OF CAUSE OF INJURY

TABLE-9: SHOWING THE INCIDENCE OF OCCUPATION OF THE

OCCUPATION NO. OF PATIENTS PERCENTAGE (%)

TABLE-10: SHOWING THE INCIDENCE OF SIGN AND SYMPTOMS OF THE

SIGN & SYMPTOMS NO. OF PATIENTS PERCENTAGE (%)

INCIDENCE OF SIGN & SYMPTOMS

TABLE-11: SHOWING THE INCIDENCE OF ADDICTION OF THE

ADDICTION NO. OF PATIENTS PERCENTAGE (%)

During my research study some patients were dropped out.

TABLE-12: SHOWING DROPPED OUT PATIENTS

GROUP NO. OF PATIENTS DROPPED OUT PATIENTS TOTAL

N= Total number of patients

TABLE-13: SHOWING THE % 0F PATIENTS IMPROVED IN GR-T & GR-C

SIGN & SYMPTOMS AT1

TABLE- 14: SHOWING THE % OF PATIENTS IMPROVED IN GR-T & GR-C

SIGN & SYMPTOMS AT2

(FIGURE NO. 13)

TABLE-15: SHOWING THE % OF PATIENTS IMPROVED IN GR-T & GR-C

SIGN & SYMPTOMS AT3

TABLE-16: SHOWING THE % OF PATIENTS IMPROVED IN GR-T &GR-C

SIGN & SYMPTOMS AT4

(FIGURE NO. 15)

TABLE-17: SHOWING THE % OF CHANGE IN GR T AND GR C AFTER 7 DAYS

Sl. No. SIGN & SYMPTOMS AT1

(FIGURE NO. 16)

TABLE-18: SHOWING THE % OF CHANGE IN GR T AND GR C AFTER 14 DAYS

(FIGURE NO. 17)

TABLE-19: SHOWING THE % OF CHANGE IN GR T AND GR C AFTER 21DAYS

(FIGURE NO. 18)

TABLE-20: SHOWING THE % OF CHANGE IN GR T AND GR C AFTER 28 DAYS

(FIGURE NO. 19)

TABLE-21: SHOWING THE SIZE OF THE WOUND WITH % OF

21-30CM2 2 2 28.60 1 61.30 0 77.70 0 92.50

After 14 days treatments out of 28 patients of trial group 22 (78.57%) patients

Average percentage of improvement after 7 days, 14 days, 21 days and 28

TABLE-22: SHOWING THE SIZE OF THE WOUND WITH % OF

It has been observed that out of 12 patients of control group 7 (58.33%)

After 14 days treatments out of 12 patients of control group 8 (66.67%)

Average percentage of improvement after 7 days, 14 days, 21 days and 28

= significant at 5%, = significant at 0.5%, 1% level, =highly significant at