Close
  Indian J Med Microbiol
 

Figure 22: Calculating the follicular rupture difference for each woman. Woman “A”: No artemisinin-based combination therapy (24.9–9.2=15.7); artemisinin-based combination therapy (27.9–25.5=2.4; 25.8–23.3=2.5,average of them=(2.4+2.5)/2=2.45). Woman “B”: No artemisinin-based combination therapy (21.7–9.1=12.6); artemisinin-based combination therapy (28.3–25.5=2.8). Woman “C”: No artemisinin-based combination therapy (19.2–3.6=15.6); artemisinin-based combination therapy (22.5–19.2=3.3). The disruption of ovulation by artemisinin-based combination therapy from complete rupture to partial rupture syndrome is highly significant as we can see from this analysis below (P < 0.05)

Figure 22: Calculating the follicular rupture difference for each woman. Woman “A”: No artemisinin-based combination therapy (24.9–9.2=15.7); artemisinin-based combination therapy (27.9–25.5=2.4; 25.8–23.3=2.5,average of them=(2.4+2.5)/2=2.45). Woman “B”: No artemisinin-based combination therapy (21.7–9.1=12.6); artemisinin-based combination therapy (28.3–25.5=2.8). Woman “C”: No artemisinin-based combination therapy (19.2–3.6=15.6); artemisinin-based combination therapy (22.5–19.2=3.3). The disruption of ovulation by artemisinin-based combination therapy from complete rupture to partial rupture syndrome is highly significant as we can see from this analysis below (<i>P</i> < 0.05)