Skip to main content

Table 1 Demographic features of the participants at baseline

From: Comparative effectiveness of Chuna manual therapy versus conventional usual care for non-acute low back pain: a pilot randomized controlled trial

Variables Group P value*
CMT (n = 20) UC (n = 20) CMT + UC (n = 20)
Sex, n (%)     1.000a
 Male 5 (25.0) 5 (25.0) 4 (20.0)  
 Female 15 (75.0) 15 (75.0) 16 (80.0)  
Age (years) 41.70 ± 13.27 37.80 ± 12.21 41.20 ± 12.86 .576b
Height (cm) 164.75 ± 7.22 165.45 ± 7.77 163.80 ± 7.72 .904c
Weight (kg) 63.60 ± 10.65 59.25 ± 12.05 61.10 ± 9.74 .450b
Symptom onset (years) 5.09 ± 4.32 4.97 ± 4.82 7.46 ± 7.57 .467c
NRS (LBP) 5.80 ± 1.32 5.50 ± 1.05 6.05 ± 1.15 .176c
NRS (leg pain) 3.60 ± 2.93 1.85 ± 2.46 4.40 ± 3.03 .018c
ODI 25.17 ± 6.52 26.06 ± 7.78 28.47 ± 8.87 .388b
EQ-5D (points) 0.70 ± 0.19 0.74 ± 0.06 0.63 ± 0.21 .078c
HUI-III 0.88 ± 0.12 0.88 ± 0.13 0.91 ± 0.09 .750c
ROM (flexion) 89.00 ± 9.40 89.30 ± 7.66 81.65 ± 18.26 .261c
  1. All values are shown as mean ± standard deviation, except for sex. *Statistical analysis was conducted based on intension-to-treat analysis, imputing by the method of last observation carried forward. Shapiro-Wilks’s test was employed to test the normality of the data distribution
  2. CMT Chuna manual therapy, UC usual care, CI confidence interval, NRS numerical rating scale, LBP low back pain, ODI Oswestry Disability Index, PGIC Patient’s Global Impression of Change, EQ-5D EuroQol 5 dimensions questionnaire, HUI-III Health Utility Index, ROM range of motion
  3. aP values were derived from Fisher’s exact test
  4. bP values were derived from analysis of variance with Scheffe’s method for pairwise comparison
  5. cP values were derived from the Kruskal-Wallis test with the Mann-Whitney U test for pairwise comparison