Table 4.

Difference in acupuncture intervention for patients with DFS versus PAD in unilateral acupuncture (Acu 1) and bilateral acupuncture (Acu 2) when compared to baseline measurements before acupuncture.

Parameter				Estimate	Std. Error	p-value	95% Confidence Interval
							Lower bound	Upper bound
Flow	Flow S	Acu 1	DFS vs. PAD	13.86∞	2.20	< 0.001	9.55	18.17
		Acu 2		1.26∞	2.71	0.642*	−4.04	6.56
	Flow D	Acu 1	DFS vs. PAD	−0.25∆	2.13	0.907*	−4.42	3.92
		Acu 2		−21.80∆	2.62	< 0.001	−26.93	−16.69
SO2	SO2 S	Acu 1	DFS vs. PAD	2.94∞	0.51	< 0.001	1.94	3.94
		Acu 2		2.96∞	0.63	< 0.001	1.73	4.19
	SO2 D	Acu 1	DFS vs. PAD	0.712∞	0.46	0.122*	−0.19	1.61
		Acu 2		−1.87∆	0.57	0.001	−2.98	−0.76
Velo	Velo S	Acu 1	DFS vs. PAD	1.95∞	0.29	< 0.001	1.38	2.52
		Acu 2		0.53∞	0.36	0.139*	−0.17	1.23
	Velo D	Acu 1	DFS vs. PAD	0.21∞	0.31	0.499*	−0.40	0.83
		Acu 2		−1.97∆	0.39	< 0.001	−2.73	−1.22
rHb	rHb S	Acu 1	DFS vs. PAD	3.03∞	0.43	< 0.001	2.18	3.88
		Acu 2		1.94∞	0.53	< 0.001	0.89	2.98
	rHb D	Acu 1	DFS vs. PAD	−0.20∆	0.74	0.784*	−1.66	1.25
		Acu 2		−1.69∆	0.91	0.064*	−3.47	0.10

Acu 1, unilateral acupuncture, Acu 2, bilateral acupuncture.

^∞ values = DFS better than PAD.

^∆ values = PAD better than DFS.

p value: <0.05 statistical significance showed in bold.

*not statistically significant.