Comparison of Magnetic Auriculotherapy, Laser Auriculotherapy and Their Combination for Treatment of Insomnia in the Elderly: A Double-Blinded Randomised Trial
Table 2
Reported adverse effects, expectations, and satisfaction towards the therapy ¥.
All (n=147)
Group 1 Placebo LAT & MAT (n=50)
Group 2 LAT & placebo MAT (n=46)
Group 3 Combined AT (n=51)
P-value
Have you used complementary therapies in the past?#
★ 0.423
No
96 (65.3%)
33
33
30
Yes
51 (34.7%)
17
13
21
How much faith do you have in complementary therapies in general (0 to 10) #
7.82 (2.13)
8.40 (1.94)
7.48 (2.18)
7.55 (2.18)
❖ 0.056
Expectation for treatment effect towards MAT (0 to 10) #
7.41 (2.10)
7.96 (2.11)
6.93 (2.03)
7.31 (2.07)
❖ 0.051
Expectation for treatment effect towards LAT (0 to 10) #
7.41 (2.13)
8.08 (2.00)
6.87 (2.09)
7.25 (2.15)
❖ 0.016
Average expectation for treatment effect (0 to 10) #
7.73 (2.13)
8.40 (2.03)
7.20 (2.03)
7.57 (2.18)
❖ 0.016
Ear itchiness ¥
16 (10.9%)
8 (resolve automatically)
2 (resolve automatically)
6 (resolve automatically)
- - -
Tenderness on acupoints ¥
20 (13.6%)
9 (resolve automatically)
1 (resolve automatically)
10 (resolve automatically)
- - -
Satisfaction towards therapy (0 to 10) ¥
7.58 (2.37)
7.86 (2.03)
7.02 (2.68)
7.58 (2.37)
❖ 0.225
Thought that they might be receiving placebo treatment ¥
No
126 (90.0%)
39
41
46
◈0.011
Yes
14 (10.0%)
10
3
1
Will recommend this therapy to others ¥
◈ 0.166
Definitely will
109 (75.7%)
38
29
42
Maybe
20 (13.9%)
5
9
6
No
15 (10.4%)
6
7
2
Mean (standard deviation) unless otherwise noted. Association between variables was determined by chi-square analyses or Fisher’s-exact test where appropriate. #Evaluated before the intervention. ¥Evaluated after the intervention has been completed. “Certain” causality. ❖One-way analysis of variance. ◈Fisher’s exact test. ★Chi-square test. Statistically significant at P<0.05.
