Brief Article
Copyright ©2013 Baishideng Publishing Group Co.
World J Gastroenterol. Nov 14, 2013; 19(42): 7455-7460
Published online Nov 14, 2013. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v19.i42.7455
Table 1 Demographic and baseline characteristics of the study patients
VariableAMT groupConventional groupP value
n = 16n = 14
Age (yr)43.19 ± 10.9642.93 ± 13.10.953
Gender (male/female)6/105/91.000
BMI21.54 ± 2.0923.01 ± 3.490.166
Smoking habit4 (18.75%)3 (21.42%)1.000
Alcohol consumption6 (37.5%)5 (35.71%)1.000
Symptom duration (yr)1.44 ± 0.661.54 ± 0.890.731
GETS5.44 ± 1.635.71 ± 1.380.623
PSQI8.75 ± 4.688.71 ± 5.270.984
Table 2 Change in glasgow edinburgh throat scale score and Pittsburgh sleep quality index in patients treated with amitriptyline vs pantoprazole and incidence of side effects n (%)
VariableAMT groupConventional groupP value
n = 16n = 14
GETS score
Baseline5.44 ± 1.635.71 ± 1.380.623
3 d3.69 ± 1.1415.64 ± 1.280.000
10 d2 ± 1.7115.36 ± 1.220.000
4 wk1.25 ± 1.8413.79 ± 2.3310.002
Treatment response12 (75)5 (35.71)0.004
PSQI4.19 ± 2.078.5 ± 4.970.008
Adverse effect
Dry mouth12 (75)4 (28.5)0.026
Sleepiness11 (68.8)2 (14.3)0.004
Dizziness4 (25)1 (7.1)0.336
Constipation3 (18.8)1 (7.1)0.602
Palpitations1 (6.3)0 (0)1.000
Malaise1 (6.3)0 (0)1.000
Table 3 Changes in social functioning-36 subscale scores in patients treated with amitriptyline vs Pantoprazole
VariableBaselineWeek 4P value
PFAMT95 ± 11.495.94 ± 11.140.945
Conventional93.93 ± 7.1295.71 ± 4.75
RPAMT64.06 ± 37.681.25 ± 26.6110.929
Conventional66.07 ± 37.4880.36 ± 28.041
BPAMT89.38 ± 16.5290.63 ± 14.550.498
Conventional85.57 ± 20.6886.29 ± 19.96
GHAMT56.75 ± 20.9273 ± 17.5710.044
Conventional49.86 ± 22.4958.71 ± 19.571
VTAMT70.63 ± 18.1588.44 ± 7.0110.024
Conventional71.79 ± 24.773.21 ± 24.39
SFAMT75 ± 18.2592.97 ± 13.6710.049
Conventional77.68 ± 18.4681.25 ± 17.511
REAMT68.76 ± 35.4279.18 ± 23.9610.384
Conventional61.91 ± 41.0569.05 ± 38.04
MHAMT68.75 ± 15.6883.5 ± 1010.005
Conventional65.43 ± 19.3269.14 ± 15.72