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