©The Author(s) 2022.
World J Clin Cases. Nov 16, 2022; 10(32): 11712-11725
Published online Nov 16, 2022. doi: 10.12998/wjcc.v10.i32.11712
Published online Nov 16, 2022. doi: 10.12998/wjcc.v10.i32.11712
Table 6 Comparison two groups with toxicity
| Toxicity | DXM 40 mg group | DXM 20 mg group | P value |
| Adverse gastrointestinal reactions | 14 | 6 | 0.044 |
| GTA | 3 | 5 | 0.426 |
| IFG | 4 | 7 | 0.303 |
| DM | 3 | 7 | 0.162 |
| GTA + TFG + DM | 10 | 19 | 0.033 |
| β-CTX | 5 | 12 | 0.049 |
| Osteoporosis | 5 | 7 | 0.487 |
| Hypertension | 4 | 5 | 0.677 |
| TG | 7 | 7 | 0.933 |
| TC | 8 | 9 | 0.717 |
| Acne | 3 | 6 | 0.267 |
| PU | 3 | 4 | 0.654 |
| Insomnia | 3 | 11 | 0.017 |
- Citation: Hu SL, Liu M, Zhang JY. Comparing the efficacy of different dexamethasone regimens for maintenance treatment of multiple myeloma in standard-risk patients non-eligible for transplantation. World J Clin Cases 2022; 10(32): 11712-11725
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/2307-8960/full/v10/i32/11712.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.12998/wjcc.v10.i32.11712