Short-Term Effect of Laser Acupuncture on Lower Back Pain: A Randomized, Placebo-Controlled, Double-Blind Trial
Table 2
Mean change in outcomes from baseline to each time interval.
The laser acupuncture group
The sham laser acupuncture group
value
( = 28)
( = 26)
Mean ± SD
95% CI
value
Mean ± SD
95% CI
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 -test for outcome variables within each group; results of independent two-sample -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.
