Skip to main content

Advertisement

Table 6 Comparison of baseline and follow-up outcomes between the two groups by intention-to-treat analysisa

From: Effects of pain neuroscience education in hospitalized patients with high tibial osteotomy: a quasi-experimental study using propensity score matching

 Follow-up to baselineDifference in change between groups
InterventionControlMean (95% CI)P valueCohen’s d
Primary
 Rest (NRS)b−0.9 (1.0)−1.0 (1.0)0.1 (−0.2, 0.4)0.65 0.11
 Pain during walking (NRS)c−2.0 (1.7)−1.8 (1.7)−0.2 (− 0.9, 0.4)0.47 0.14
Secondary
 Pain catastrophizing (PCS)d−13.4 (8.7)−10.0 (8.6)−3.5 (−6.9, 0.0)0.050 0.40
 Self-efficacy (PSEQ)e4.8 (10.7)2.0 (10.9)2.8 (−1.5, 7.1)0.20 0.26
 Quadriceps muscle strength
  Operative sidef−0.03 (0.14)0.00 (0.12)−0.03 (− 0.08, 0.03)0.35 0.23
  Nonoperative sideg0.05 (0.11)0.02 (0.11)0.03 (−0.02, 0.07)0.25
0.27
 10-m walking testh0.3 (5.1)1.8 (4.8)−1.5 (−3.5, 0.5)0.147 0.3
  1. Data in first two columns are presented as mean (standard deviation). Baseline: preoperative, Follow-up: 5 weeks postoperatively, PNE pain neuroscience education, Reha: rehabilitation, 95% CI: 95% confidence level, NRS numerical rating scale, PCS Pain Catastrophizing Scale, PSEQ Pain Self-Efficacy Questionnaire
  2. aValues adjusted for baseline scores using analysis of covariance
  3. bIntervention (n = 50), Control (n = 52)
  4. cIntervention (n = 48), Control (n = 47)
  5. dIntervention (n = 49), Control (n = 48), eIntervention (n = 48), Control (n = 48)
  6. fIntervention (n = 43), Control (n = 48)
  7. gIntervention (n = 43), Control (n = 44)
  8. hIntervention (n = 41), Control (n = 47)