Investigators reported that among 170 patients with primary dysmenorrhea, classification into a non‑deqi group (n = 61) and a deqi group (n = 109) preceded propensity score matching; after matching, each arm comprised 59 patients. All participants underwent suspended moxibustion at Guanyuan (CV4) for 30 minutes while skin temperature at the point was recorded pre‑ and post‑treatment. The study team observed a marked difference in the incidence of a post‑treatment or secondary temperature rise: 59.32% in the deqi group versus 3.39% in the non‑deqi group (P <0.01). Peak timing of the secondary rise was reported at approximately 22.06 ± 1.66 minutes after stopping moxibustion in the deqi subgroup that experienced the effect.
Short sentence. The timing detail was explicit in the source and provides a reproducible observation window for clinicians measuring post‑moxibustion thermal responses.
The study team quantified the mean magnitude of the secondary temperature rise in affected deqi patients as 0.54 ± 0.13 °C. They also compared cooling trends: the cooling slope following the secondary temperature peak was slower than the immediate cooling slope observed right after cessation of moxibustion (P <0.01). This indicates a distinct thermal profile when the secondary rise occurs — a modest, delayed warming followed by a prolonged decline in skin temperature at CV4.
This description is limited to surface skin temperature. The source did not report deeper tissue temperature measurements or concurrent physiological monitoring such as blood flow or autonomic markers beyond the deqi dimensions noted.
Data indicated that patients in the deqi group who developed a secondary temperature rise had longer effective deqi time and higher deqi intensity compared with deqi patients without the secondary rise (P <0.01 for both). The investigators also reported higher incidence rates for two subjective deqi dimensions in the secondary‑rise subgroup: general comfort emotional experience and autonomic response. The degree of secondary temperature rise correlated positively with both effective deqi time and deqi intensity (P <0.001).
Brief interpretation: the thermal phenomenon tracked with stronger and longer subjective moxibustion sensations. The study team framed these observations as tightly linked, with statistical correlations reported in the source.
Only patients in the deqi group proceeded to the efficacy analysis after receiving moxibustion across two menstrual cycles, described in the source as treatment for (7±2) days per cycle. The study used the short‑form McGill Pain Questionnaire (SF‑MPQ) and the COX Menstrual Symptom Scale (CMSS) to evaluate pain and associated symptoms before treatment, after treatment, and at follow‑up.
Investigators observed that SF‑MPQ and CMSS scores decreased after treatment and at follow‑up in both deqi patients with and without the secondary temperature rise (P <0.01 compared with baseline). However, reductions were greater in patients who experienced the secondary temperature rise; the source reported between‑group differences reaching P <0.05 to P <0.01. The reported total effective rate was 95.83% (23/24) in deqi patients with secondary temperature rise versus 75.00% (18/24) in deqi patients without the secondary rise (P <0.05). The magnitude of the secondary temperature rise was also positively correlated with therapeutic efficacy (P <0.001).
The outcome measures reported are patient‑reported scales; the source gave no biochemical or objective physiologic correlates tied to clinical improvement beyond the skin temperature metrics.
The source documented suspended moxibustion at Guanyuan (CV4) for 30 minutes per session for all patients during the temperature observation phase. For the efficacy phase limited to deqi patients, treatment was administered over two menstrual cycles with each cycle including treatment for (7±2) days. The study team applied the SF‑MPQ and CMSS to quantify pain and menstrual symptoms. Propensity score matching was used to balance baseline characteristics across the initial deqi and non‑deqi arms; after matching, each group contained 59 patients as stated by the authors.
The paper did not provide additional procedural detail in the English abstract about specific moxa dose, distance from skin, frequency per day, or device calibration for temperature measurement. The source did not report objective hemodynamic monitoring or biomarkers alongside the skin temperature recordings.
Authors declared no conflicts of interest. The English abstract and available source text did not enumerate broader limitations such as sample size considerations beyond matched counts, blinding, or generalizability to populations outside the study setting. The source also did not report long‑term outcomes beyond the described follow‑up interval, nor did it provide deeper physiologic measurements (for example, tissue perfusion or autonomic testing) to explain the secondary temperature phenomenon. These omissions restrict mechanistic interpretation and the ability to generalize the thermal‑response linkage to clinical effect beyond the reported cohort.
The immediate next questions left open by the report include whether the secondary temperature rise is reproducible across centers, what procedural parameters (moxa quantity, distance, operator technique) most influence its occurrence, and whether objective physiologic measures can validate the proposed link between the thermal profile and symptom improvement. The source did not provide data to answer those questions.