Skip to main content
. 2015 Oct 1;2015:808425. doi: 10.1155/2015/808425

Table 2.

Mean change in outcomes from baseline to each time interval.

The laser acupuncture group The sham laser acupuncture group P value††
(n = 28) (n = 26)
Mean ± SD 95% CI P value Mean ± SD 95% CI P value
(minimum, median, maximum) (minimum, median, maximum)
VAS
 Visit 1 (baseline) 44.64 ± 11.86 (30, 40, 75) 47.78 ± 10.95 (30, 40, 80)
 Visit 2 −2.68 ± 10.04 (−30, 0, 20) [−5.91, 0.55] 0.0848 −5.56 ± 9.23 (−30, 0, 10) [−8.59, −2.52] <0.01 0.2743
 Visit 3 −8.75 ± 10.42 (−30, −10, 10) [−12.1, −5.4] <0.001 −7.22 ± 12.58 (−40, −10, 20) [−11.35, −3.09] <0.01 0.6253
 Visit 4 (f/u) −11.07 ± 12.12 (−40, −10, 10) [−14.97, −7.17] <0.001 −12.78 ± 13.82 (−60, −10, 10) [−17.31, −8.24] <0.001 0.6281
PPT
 Visit 1 (baseline) 7.12 ± 2.27 (3, 7, 12) 6.56 ± 1.86 (4, 6, 12)
 Visit 2 −1.34 ± 1.66 (−5, −1, 1) [−1.88, −0.81] <0.001 −0.96 ± 1.26 (−4, −1, 2) [−1.37, −0.55] <0.001 0.3423
 Visit 3 −1.3 ± 2.3 (−7, −1, 2) [−2.04, −0.56] <0.01 −0.76 ± 1.49 (−4, −1, 2) [−1.24, −0.27] <0.01 0.3060
 Visit 4 (f/u) −1.2 ± 2.21 (−6, −1, 3) [−1.91, −0.49] <0.01 −0.8 ± 1.55 (−4, −1, 2) [−1.3, −0.29] <0.01 0.4374
PGIC
 Visit 1 (baseline) 4 ± 0 (4, 4, 4) 4 ± 0 (4, 4, 4)
 Visit 4 (f/u) −1 ± 0.72 (−2, −1, 0) [−1.23, −0.77] <0.001 −0.93 ± 0.78 (−3, −1, 1) [−1.18, −0.67] <0.001 0.7159
EQ-5D
 Visit 1 (baseline) 0.79 ± 0.08 (0.56, 0.81, 0.9) 0.75 ± 0.1 (0.51, 0.77, 0.86)
 Visit 4 (f/u) 0.03 ± 0.08 (−0.14, 0, 0.23) [0.01, 0.06] <0.05 0.04 ± 0.09 (−0.1, 0.04, 0.31) [0.01, 0.07] <0.01 0.5833

Results of paired two-sample t-test for outcome variables within each group; ††results of independent two-sample t-test for outcome variables between groups.

Since all statistical analyses were set to the one-tailed test, 90% confidence intervals were provided.

VAS: visual analogue scale; PGIC: patient global impression of change; PPT: pressure pain threshold; EQ-5D: Euro-Quality-of-Life Five Dimensions; f/u: follow-up.