Page 43 - วารสารกรมการแพทย์แผนไทยฯ ปีที่ 11 ฉบับที่ 2

Journal of Thai Traditional & Alternative Medicine Vol. 11 No. 2 May-August 2013 147

three sessions of a one-hour taking a rest were analyzed by using t-test

(lying down and sleeping) for the same pe-
Results
riod of time.
The women in both groups were ex- At the end of the study, there were 59

pected to be eligible to participate through- women remained. One woman in the mas-
out the trial. Once the subjects passed the sage group was excluded because she could
inclusion criteria, general history, the level of not lie in the supine position for a long pe-

low back pain score which were measured riod due to severe coughing. In addition, there
by Numeric Rating scale method, and the were two women, one in the massage group

lordosis scale were recorded by measuring and another in the control group, could not
the depth of a line drawn from the upper come back for the second visit. Moreover,
2
back to the coccyx , both before and after Comparison of general information of the two
each intervention. The impact on quality of groups showed no statistical difference.
life scores were also recorded before and af- In table 1, there were statistically sig-

ter the study. The women who could not be nificant decrease in the pain scores in both
followed up during the study nor who suf- groups after the sessions and every visit.
fered from more pain during the interven- Moreover, it seemed like the pre-massage pain

tions and those who used any analgesic drugs score in the massage group decreased con-
were discarded from the study. SPSS version tinuously which was different from the pre-
13 was used for statistical analysis. The dif- pain score in the control group.

ferences between pre and post intervention In table 2, the mean difference in pain
means were analyzed by using paired t - test, scores in the massage group were signifi-
and the differences between the two groups cantly higher than those in the control group.

Table 1: The comparison of the low back pain score between pre and post intervention in both groups.

Low back pain score (mean ± S.D)
Visit Massage group (n=29) Control group (n=30)

Pre- Post- P-value Pre- Post- P-value
First 5.41±1.05 2.48±1.27 0.001* 5.55±0.91 4.05±1.10 0.001*
Second 4.24±1.60 1.81±1.27 0.001* 5.37±1.37 3.95±1.64 0.001*
Third 3.72±1.71 1.28±1.39 0.001* 5.00±1.36 3.63±1.67 0.001*

*statistically significant (P-value < 0.05)