Table 2.
Effect of electrical stimulation of acupoints for both groups (n = 75).
| Variables | Time 1 M(SD) |
Time 2 M(SD) |
Time 3 M(SD) |
F a | Scheffe’ Post Hoc |
F b | F c |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Saliva flow rate (mL/min) |
23.77 *** | 15.28 *** | |||||
| TEAS (n = 37) | 0.05 (0.03) | 0.38 (0.17) | 0.28 (0.15) | 38.39 *** | Time 2 > Time 1 ** Time 3 > Time 1 ** |
||
| Contrast (n = 38) | 0.05 (0.03) | 0.21 (0.10) | 0.17 (0.10) | 18.51 *** | Time 2 > Time 1 ** Time 3 > Time 1 ** |
||
| Dry mouth (score) | 0.95 | 0.94 | |||||
| TEAS (n = 37) | 34.3 (18.9) | 22.4 (15.1) | 18.7 (13.5) | 22.64 *** | |||
| Contrast (n = 38) | 35.4 (17.3) | 26.2 (12.9) | 23.3 (12.4) | 11.54 *** | |||
| %IDWG (%) | 4.0 (1.7) | 4.1 (1.6) | 3.9 (2.0) | 0.07 | 0.94 | 0.44 | |
| TEAS (n = 37) | |||||||
| Contrast (n = 38) | 4.3 (1.5) | 4.4 (1.2) | 4.1 (1.3) | 0.07 |
Notes: After adjusting for covariates (hemodialysis duration), a two-way ANOVA, mixed design was used. *** p < 0.0001. ** p < 0.001. Time 1: before TEAS program, Time 2: immediately after completion of the TEAS program, Time 3: one week after completion of the TEAS program. a Time factor, b group, c time × group.