Table 5.
Post-hoc analysis of patients using rescue medications among the 4 groups during all phasesa
| Proportion of participants using rescue medications, n (%) | Pairwise comparison | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EA + CBZ (n = 30) | SEA + CBZ (n = 29) | EA + P (n = 29) | SEA + P (n = 29) | The effect of EA | The effect of CBZ | |||
| Z value | P valuea | Z value | P valuea | |||||
| Baseline | 15 (50.00) | 15 (50.00) | 14(46.67) | 17 (56.67) | 0.132 | 0.895 | 0.132 | 0.895 |
| Week 2 | 1 (3.33) | 0 (0.0) | 1 (3.45) | 4 (13.79) | 0.992 | 0.321 | 0.024 | 0.981 |
| Week 4 | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 0 (0.0) | 3 (10.34) | 0.000 | 1.000 | 0.000 | 1.000 |
| Week 16 | 9 (30.00) | 12 (41.37) | 8 (27.59) | 20 (68.97) | 0.913 | 0.361 | 0.205 | 0.838 |
| Week 28 | 6 (20.00) | 15 (51.72) | 7 (24.14) | 21 (72.41) | 2.544 | 0.011* | 0.383 | 0.701 |
aThe proportions of participants using rescue medications was compared between groups with the Fisher’s exact test
*P < 0.05
Abbreviations: 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