Effect of Electroacupuncture versus Sham Electroacupuncture in Patients with Knee Osteoarthritis: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial
Table 2
Comparison of variables between the two groups (intention-to-treat).
Variables
Electroacupuncture (n = 15)
Sham electroacupuncture (n = 15)
Proportion of responders, no. (%)
Week 8
8 (53.3%)
4 (26.7%)
0.264
TUG, mean (SD), s
Week 8
11.4 (3.5)
11.6 (3.9)
0.856
Week 16
10.4 (3.2)
12.6 (5.8)
0.208
Week 26
10.5 (3.4)
12.6 (6.1)
0.239
Change from baseline and 8 weeks
2.4 (2.3)
1.3 (1.9)
0.162
AROM, mean (SD), °
Week 8
121.2 (13.6)
114.7 (16.1)
0.240
Week 16
118.7 (19.0)
115.4 (17.5)
0.621
Week 26
118.1 (19.4)
112.9 (18.8)
0.468
Change from baseline and 8 weeks
4.4 (6.7)
−0.7 (5.2)
0.027
PROM, mean (SD), °
Week 8
132.4 (9.3)
122.6 (16.9)
0.059
Week 16
127.8 (17.6)
121.5 (18.4)
0.347
Week 26
127.9 (17.7)
119.6 (20.3)
0.247
Change from baseline and 8 weeks
7.5 (12.0)
−1.5 (5.3)
0.012
Quadriceps muscle strength score, mean (SD) or median (P75, P25)
Week 8
10.6 (1.1)
10.7 (1.5)
0.891
Week 16
10.7 (1.1)
12 (12, 10)
0.233
Week 26
10.8 (1.3)
10.9 (1.4)
0.785
Change from baseline and 8 weeks
0.0 (2.0, 0.0)
0.0 (1.0, 0.0)
0.539
Hamstring muscle strength score, mean (SD)
Week 8
9.0 (1.3)
9.1 (1.4)
0.786
Week 16
9.1 (1.5)
9.0 (1.3)
0.798
Week 26
9.1 (1.4)
8.9 (1.4)
0.594
Change from baseline and 8 weeks
0.3 (1.0)
0.1 (0.9)
0.582
Lequesne index score, mean (SD)
Week 8
7.0 (3.9)
8.4 (4.5)
0.383
Week 16
6.4 (4.2)
8.6 (4.8)
0.192
Week 26
6.2 (4.4)
8.7 (4.5)
0.128
Change from baseline and 8 weeks
3.6 (2.7)
2.3 (2.8)
0.211
9-SCT, mean (SD), s
Week 8
18.0 (8.6)
18.8 (12.0)
0.826
Week 16
16.7 (8.7)
18.7 (12.8)
0.617
Week 26
17.1 (8.4)
19.1 (12.6)
0.617
Change from baseline and 8 weeks
3.3 (5.8)
−0.1 (1.8)
0.041
TUG: Timed Up and Go Test; AROM: active maximum flexion knee range of motion; PROM: passive maximum flexion knee range of motion; 9-SCT: 9-step stair-climb test. Significant .
