Copyright
©The Author(s) 2022.
World J Clin Cases. Nov 16, 2022; 10(32): 11753-11765
Published online Nov 16, 2022. doi: 10.12998/wjcc.v10.i32.11753
Published online Nov 16, 2022. doi: 10.12998/wjcc.v10.i32.11753
Table 1 Basic characteristics of the patients and pretest results
| Group | Sex | Age | Pretest | |||||
| Men | Women | VAS | PPI | PRI | PRI sensory | PRI affective | ||
| CG (n = 55) | 15 | 40 | 52.62 ± 13.62 | 5 (4-7) | 3 (1-3) | 7 (4-11) | 4 (3-7) | 2 (1-4) |
| EG (n = 58) | 16 | 42 | 50.74 ± 13.33 | 5 (4-7) | 3 (1-3) | 7 (4.75-10.25) | 5.5 (3.75-8.25) | 2 (1-3) |
| Test statistic | χ2 = 0.001 | t = 0.740 | Z = 0.911 | Z = 0.800 | Z = 0.823 | Z = 1.199 | Z = 0.049 | |
| P value | 0.97 | 0.46 | 0.36 | 0.42 | 0.411 | 0.231 | 0.961 | |
Table 2 Changes in visual analog scale scores after treatment
| Group | T1 | T2 | T3 | T4 | Wald χ2 | P value |
| CG (n = 55) | 4 (3-5) | 3 (2-4) | 4 (3-4) | 4 (3-5) | 48.753 | 0.000 |
| EG (n = 58) | 3 (2-4) | 2 (1-3) | 2 (1-3) | 2 (1-3) | 109.567 | 0.000 |
| Wald χ2 | 22.231 | 33.434 | 28.782 | 60.137 | ||
| P value | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Table 3 Changes in present pain intensity index scores after treatment
| Group | T1 | T2 | T3 | T4 | Wald χ2 | P value |
| CG (n = 55) | 2 (1-2) | 1 (1-2) | 1 (1-2) | 1 (1-2) | 38.414 | 0.000 |
| EG (n = 58) | 1 (1-2) | 1 (0-1) | 1 (0-1) | 1 (0-1) | 93.582 | 0.000 |
| Wald χ2 | 16.402 | 25.200 | 17.110 | 16.577 | ||
| P value | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Table 4 Changes in pain rating index total scores after treatment
| Group | T1 | T2 | T3 | T4 | Wald χ2 | P value |
| CG (n = 55) | 5 (3-7) | 4 (2-5) | 5 (3-6) | 6 (4-7) | 65.551 | 0.000 |
| EG (n = 58) | 4 (2-6) | 2 (1-4) | 3 (1-5) | 3 (1-5) | 238.185 | 0.000 |
| Wald χ2 | 13.836 | 15.177 | 26.756 | 61.454 | ||
| P value | 0.001 | 0.000 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Table 5 Changes in pain rating index sensory pain scores after treatment
| Group | T1 | T2 | T3 | T4 | Wald χ2 | P value |
| CG (n = 55) | 4 (2-5) | 3 (1-4) | 4 (2-5) | 4 (3-5) | 45.488 | 0.000 |
| EG (n = 58) | 3 (2-4) | 3 (2-4) | 2 (1-3) | 2 (1-4) | 197.864 | 0.000 |
| Wald χ2 | 10.353 | 13.305 | 28.271 | 63.510 | ||
| P value | 0.001 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Table 6 Changes in pain rating index affective pain scores after receiving treatment
| Group | T1 | T2 | T3 | T4 | Wald χ2 | P value |
| CG (n = 55) | 1 (0-2) | 1 (0-2) | 1 (0-2) | 1 (1-2) | 78.635 | 0.000 |
| EG (n = 58) | 1 (0-2) | 0 (0-1) | 1 (0-1) | 1 (0-1) | 128.366 | 0.000 |
| Wald χ2 | 3.227 | 5.489 | 5.588 | 23.485 | ||
| P value | 0.072 | 0.019 | 0.018 | 0.000 |
- Citation: Xiao J, Cao BY, Xie Z, Ji YX, Zhao XL, Yang HJ, Zhuang W, Sun HH, Liang WM. Clinical efficacy of electromagnetic field therapy combined with traditional Chinese pain-reducing paste in myofascial pain syndrome. World J Clin Cases 2022; 10(32): 11753-11765
- URL: https://www.wjgnet.com/2307-8960/full/v10/i32/11753.htm
- DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.12998/wjcc.v10.i32.11753