A Randomized Clinical Trial Comparing the Effectiveness of Electroacupuncture versus Medium-Frequency Electrotherapy for Discogenic Sciatica

Table 3

Secondary outcomes of the interventions.

Variable	EA group ()	MFE group ()	value
	Mean (95% CI)	Mean (95% CI)
Low back pain NRS
Week 2, change from baseline	2.12	1.47
Week 4, change from baseline	2.23	1.65
Week 16, change from baseline	2.00	0.40	<0.001
Week 28, change from baseline	2.00	0.40	<0.001
Total time points of weeks 1–28			0.072^§
ODI questionnaire
Week 2, change from baseline	6.79	6.49
Week 4, change from baseline	12.34	6.65
Week 16, change from baseline	11.29	3.63	<0.001
Week 28, change from baseline	10.95	1.87	<0.001
Total time points of weeks 1–28			0.001^§
Patient global impression, number (%)
Week 2	Great: 3 (6.4%), moderate: 15 (31.9%) little: 24 (51.1%), no: 5 (10.6%)	Great: 2 (5%), moderate: 9 (22.5%), little: 22 (55.0%), no: 7 (17.5%)
Week 4	Great: 7 (14.9%), moderate: 23 (48.9%), little: 11 (23.4%), no: 6 (12.8%)	Great: 2 (5%), moderate: 13 (32.5%) little: 18 (45.0%), no: 7 (17.5%)
Drug use frequency, number (%)
Week 2	0 times: 42 (89.4%), 1–3 times: 3 (6.4%); 4–6 times: 1 (2.1%), 7–9 times: 1 (2.1%)	0 times: 33 (82.5%), 1–3 times: 3 (7.5%); 4–6 times: 4 (10.0%), 7–9 times: 0,
Week 4	0 times: 44 (93.6%), 1–3 times: 2 (4.3%); 4–6: times 1 (2.1%), 7–9 times: 0	0 times: 36 (90.0%), 1–3 times: 2 (5.0%); 4–6 times: 2 (5.0%), 7–9 times: 0
Treatment acceptance assessment, number (%)	Little difficult: 0,; Moderate: 14 (29.8%),; Easy: 16 (34%),; Very easy: 17 (36.2%)	Little difficult: 0,; Moderate: 11 (27.5%),; Easy: 18 (45.0%),; Very easy: 11 (27.5%)

NRS: numerical rating scale; EA: electroacupuncture; MFE: medium-frequency electrotherapy; CI: confidence intervals.
Chi-squared test; P value compared to baseline > 0.05; P value compared to baseline < 0.05.
T-tests; & indicates value for the between-group comparison; a repeated measures analysis of variance secondary outcomes analysis was done only with complete cases.