Extracorporeal Shock Wave Combined with Warm Acupuncture for External Humeral Epicondylitis: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Figures & data

Table 1 Comparison of General Information Between the Two Groups of Patients

Group	N	Site of Disease		Age (Years )	Duration of Illness (Months )
		Left	Right
Observation group	41	18	23	41.20±5.63	3.54±1.34
Control group	40	16	24	42.42±4.55	3.25±1.53
t/χ^2 values		0.278		0.264	0.166
P-value		0.586		0.768	0.854

Figure 1 CONSORT flow diagram.

Notes: CONSORT figure adapted from Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D, CONSORT 2010 Statement: Updated Guidelines for Reporting Parallel Group Randomised Trials. PLoS Med. 2010;7(3): e1000251. Copyright: © 2010 Schulz et al. Creative Commons Attribution License.¹¹

Figure 2 (a) Extracorporeal shock wave apparatus and parameter settings, (b) Extracorporeal shock wave therapy, (c) Warming acupuncture therapy.

Table 2 Comparison of VAS Score Between the Two Groups of Patients Before and After Treatment (Points)

Group	N	Before Treatment	At the End of the Treatment	1 Month After Treatment	3 Months After Treatment
		VAS Score	VAS Score	VAS Score	VAS Score
Observation group	41	5.2±0.8	2.2±0.9	1.9±0.9	1.9±0.9
Control group	40	5.1±0.9	3.6±1.3	3.1±1.2	3.1±1.3
t-value		0.75	−5.915	−5.514	−4.653
P-value		0.456	0.001	0.001	0.001

Table 3 Comparison of MEPS Score and DASH Score Between the Two Groups of Patients Before and After Treatment (Points)

Group	N	Before Treatment		At the End of the Treatment		1 Month After Treatment		3 Months After Treatment
		MEPS	DASH	MEPS	DASH	MEPS	DASH	MEPS	DASH
Observation group	41	52.7±5.5	71.4±4.9	84.8±6.8	17.2±3.6	88.4±6.2	13.4±6.3	88.1±6.0	13.0±2.8
Control group	40	51.7±5.6	70.2±6.0	63.3±5.3	34.3±4.1	72.4±5.0	28.3±9.6	73.3±5.2	24.3±4.6
t-value		0.772	1.039	15.956	−20.002	12.791	−16.995	11.804	−13.302
P-value		0.443	0.302	0.001	0.001	0.001	0.001	0.001	0.001

Table 4 Comparison of Inflammatory Factor Levels Between the Two Groups Before and After Treatment

Group	N	Before Treatment			At the End of the Treatment
		IL-6 (ng/l)	IL-10 (ng/l)	TNF-ɑ (ng/l)	IL-6 (ng/l)	IL-10 (ng/l)	TNF-ɑ (ng/l)
Observation group	41	17.41±1.83	18.51±2.19	55.51±3.24	8.12±1.19	7.68±1.17	28.07±2.56
Control group	40	16.98±1.64	18.15±2.32	54.98±3.64	12.70±1.64	13.05±1.41	39.05±2.30
t-value		1.138	0.723	0.702	−15.010	−18.628	−20.278
P-value		0.259	0.472	0.485	0.001	0.001	0.001

Table 5 Comparison of Clinical Outcomes Between the Two Groups [n (%)]

Group	N	Clinical Control	Visible Effect	Effective	Invalid	Total Effective Rate (%)
Observation group	41	19(46.3)	9(22.0)	10(24.4)	3(7.3)	92.7
Control group	40	11(27.5)	9(22.5)	10(25.0)	10(25.0)	75.0
χ^2 values						4.699
P-value						0.03

Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D, CONSORT Statement: Updated Guidelines for Reporting Parallel Group Randomised Trials. PLoS Med. 2010;7(3):e1000251.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar