Table 3.

The secondary outcomes of interaction effects from the full model, including 2- and 3-way interactions between treatment methods and times

Outcomes	Group	P value for EA × CBZ × time 3-way interactiona	P value for EA × CBZ interactiona	P value for main effect of EAa	P value for main effect of CBZa	P value for main effect of timea
Other outcomes to assess efficacy
SF-MPQb
PRI	EA + CBZ	0.041*	0.022*	< 0.001*	0.011*	< 0.001*
	SEA + CBZ
	EA + P
	SEA + P
PPI	EA + CBZ	0.026*	0.196	< 0.001*	0.057	< 0.001*
	SEA + CBZ
	EA + P
	SEA + P
The total number of pain attacksc	EA + CBZ	0.319	0.065	< 0.001*	0.208	< 0.001*
	SEA + CBZ
	EA + P
	SEA + P
Quality of life assessment
SF-36	EA + CBZ	0.002*	0.284	0.002*	0.023*	< 0.001*
	SEA + CBZ
	EA + P
	SEA + P
BPI-Faciald
General interference items	EA + CBZ	0.237	0.046*	< 0.001*	0.048*	< 0.001*
	SEA + CBZ
	EA + P
	SEA + P
Facial interference items	EA + CBZ	0.006*	0.189	< 0.001*	0.009*	< 0.001*
	SEA + CBZ
	EA + P
	SEA + P
PGICe	EA + CBZ	0.071	0.025*	< 0.001*	< 0.001*	< 0.001*
	SEA + CBZ
	EA + P
	SEA + P

^aMultiple comparisons between the groups were compared by using Sidak test

^bIncluding PRI and PPI. The PRI was comprised of sensory and affective scale, each selected word was scored from 0 (none) to 3 (severe). The total PRI score was obtained by summing the item scores. The PPI range from 0–5, with higher scores indicating greater pain

^cThe total number of pain attacks was calculated by summing the number of pain attacks in the past two weeks prior to the every assessment time-point

^dIncluding general interference items and facial interference items. The total score of general interference items was sum of the 7 questions that address pain interference with general activities of daily living (ADL), score range is from 0 to 70, with higher scores indicating greater impact. The total score of facial interference items was sum of the 7 questions that address pain interference with face-specific daily activities, score range is from 0 to 70, with higher scores indicating greater impact

^eThe PGIC evaluated overall health status as perceived by the patient in a seven-point single-item scale ranging from ‘very much worse’ to ‘very much improved’. For descriptive purposes, patients were classified into three categories according to the PGIC score: disease deterioration (0–3 points), stable disease (4 points) or disease improvement (5–7 points) since the initial baseline visit

*P < 0.05

Abbreviations: VAS visual analog scale, SF-MPQ Short-Form McGill pain questionnaire, PRI pain rating index, PPI present pain intensity, BPI-Facial brief pain inventory-facial scale, SF-36 Short-Form 36 questionnaire, PGIC patient global impression of change, EA + CBZ electroacupuncture plus carbarmazepine (at the dosage of 300 mg/day), SEA + CBZ sham electroacupuncture plus carbarmazepine (at the dosage of 300 mg/day), EA + P electroacupuncture plus placebo, SEA + P sham electroacupuncture plus placebo