疗效比较：疗程结束及随访时三组总有效率之间无差异（P＞0.05）；而对

Efficacy Comparison: no difference between the total efficiency (P> 0.05) and the end of the three groups during follow-up treatment; for significant cure rate after the end of treatment, acupuncture combination group was no statistically significant (P> 0.05) as compared to the joint Comparative sET group and acupuncture group was statistically significant (P <0.01, P <0.05); significant rate during the follow-up treatment, acupuncture group and the combination group compared to the group sET statistically significant (P <0.05), while the needle sET group acupuncture group was not statistically significant (P> 0.05) compared.

Comparison of efficacy: there was no difference between the total efficiency of the three groups at the end of the course of treatment and follow-up (P.0.05), while for the treatment rate after the end of the course, the combined group had no statistical significance compared to the needle group (P.05), and the joint group compared the SET group with the needle group had statistical significance (P.05) P 0.01, P 0.05; and the follow-up rate of the dominant, combined group compared to the needle group compared to the SET group has statistical significance (P 0.05), while the needle group compared to the SET group is not statistically significant (P.05).

Efficacy comparison: there was no difference in the total effective rate between the three groups at the end of the course of treatment and follow-up (P > 0.05); but for the treatment rate after the end of the course of treatment, there was no statistical significance in the combined group compared with the acupuncture group (P > 0.05), and there was statistical significance in the combined group compared with the set group (P < 0.01, P < 0.05); while the treatment rate during the follow-up, there was statistical significance in the combined group compared with the set group (P < 0.05) There was no statistical significance in acupuncture group compared with set group (P > 0.05).