Table 3.
Primary outcome measure: improvement of pain related to motion one week after treatment compared with baseline measurements. Group comparison and subgroup analyses
| Mean improvement on VAS (95% CI) | P value for comparison* | |
|---|---|---|
| All participants | ||
| Acupuncture (n=51) | 24.22 (16.5 to 31.9) | — |
| Massage (n=57) | 7.89 (0.6 to 15.2) | — |
| Sham acupuncture (n=57) | 17.28 (10.0 to 24.6) | — |
| Acupuncture v massage | 16.32 (4.4 to 28.3) | 0.0052 |
| Acupuncture v sham laser | 6.93 (−5.0 to 18.9) | 0.327 |
| Patients with the myofascial pain syndrome | ||
| Acupuncture (n=34) | 30.05 (20.4 to 39.7) | — |
| Massage (n=43) | 7.23 (−1.3 to 15.8) | — |
| Sham acupuncture (n=45) | 19.02 (10.8 to 28.2) | — |
| Acupuncture v massage | 22.8 (8.3 to 37.3) | 0.0012 |
| Acupuncture v sham laser | 11.0 (−3.2 to 25.2) | 0.1480 |
| Patients with pain >5 years | ||
| Acupuncture (n=23) | 31.87 (21.9 to 41.8) | — |
| Massage (n=23) | 13.52 (3.6 to 23.5) | — |
| Sham acupuncture (n=27) | 17.15 (7.9 to 26.3) | — |
| Acupuncture v massage | 18.35 (2.4 to 34.3) | 0.0216 |
| Acupuncture v sham laser | 14.7 (0.6 to 30.6) | 0.0617 |
VAS=visual analogue scale. *Dunnetts's test.