Supplementary Online Content

Hinman RS, McCrory P, Pirotta M, et al. Acupuncture for chronic knee pain: a
randomized clinical trial. JAMA. doi:10.1001/jama.2014.12660.

eTable 1: Exclusion criteria

eTable 2: Acupuncture points that could be selected by acupuncturists when administering needle,
laser and sham laser acupuncture

eTable 3: Treatment attendance, adverse events, medication use and co-interventions according to
treatment group

eTable 4: Blinding to laser and sham laser acupuncture, recorded after the first treatment by
participants and acupuncturists

eTable 5: Estimated differences between arms at 12 weeks using complete case analysis

eTable 6: Estimated differences between arms at 1 year using complete case analysis

eTable 7: Estimated differences between arms at 12 weeks when analyzed as-treated

eTable 8: Estimated differences between arms at 1 year when analyzed as-treated

eTable 9: Estimated differences between each acupuncture group compared to control at 12 weeks
(with multiple imputation for missing data) in the hypothetical scenario of full adherence to the
randomized intervention

eTable 10: Estimated differences between each acupuncture group compared to control at 1 year
(with multiple imputation for missing data) in the hypothetical scenario of full adherence to the
randomized intervention

eTable 11: Number (percentage) of participants reporting global improvement and estimated odds
ratios (OR) from mixed effects regression models (complete case analysis)

This supplementary material has been provided by the authors to give readers additional
information about their work.

2014 American Medical Association. All rights reserved.

Downloaded From: http://jamanetwork.com/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/journals/jama/930916/ on 05/07/2017



eTable 1: Exclusion criteria

Criterion
History of any systemic arthritic condition
History of knee arthroplasty on the most painful knee
Wait-listed for any knee surgery for either knee
History of any knee surgery in previous 6 months
Any other condition affecting lower limb function (eg trauma, malignancy, neurological
condition)
History of any knee injection in past 6 months (eg cortisone, hyaluronic acid)
Current use of oral or injectable anticoagulant medication
Use of acupuncture in past 12 months
Any bleeding disorder
Allergy to light
Referral to pain clinic or use of morphine or pethidine within past 6 months
Any other medical condition precluding participation in the trial (eg kidney or liver disease,
deep vein thrombosis)
Knee pain subject to compensation claim
Unable to give written informed consent

2014 American Medical Association. All rights reserved.

Downloaded From: http://jamanetwork.com/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/journals/jama/930916/ on 05/07/2017



eTable 2: Acupuncture points that could be selected by acupuncturists

when administering needle, laser and sham laser acupuncture
Location Acupuncture points
Local points SP9, 10
ST34, 35, 36
LR7, 8, 9
KI10
BL39, 40, 57
GB34, 35, 36
Local extra points in the hamstring muscles
Distal points ST40
LR3
SP6
GB41
BL60
Segmental points BL21, 22, 23
GB30, 31
Non-segmental and general points Ear Knee point
DU20
Li11
GV14
BL11

2014 American Medical Association. All rights reserved.

Downloaded From: http://jamanetwork.com/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/journals/jama/930916/ on 05/07/2017



eTable 3: Treatment attendance, adverse events, medication use and co-

interventions according to treatment group
Participants accepting treatment Needle Laser Sham laser
(n=57) (n=59) (n=61)
Treatments attended (Median (IQR)) 10.0 (7.3- 10.0 (8.0-10.0) 8.0 (2.3-10.0)
Attended 8 treatments, n (%) 10.0) 54 (92%) 46 (75%)
52 (91%)
Adverse events, n (%)
Increased knee pain 5 (10%) 7 (12%) 2 (3%)
Pain in other areas 1 (2%) 1 (2%) 1 (2%)
Tingling 1 (2%) 1 (2%) 1 (2%)
Nausea and/or dizziness 0 (0%) 1 (2%) 1 (2%)
Tiredness 1 (2%) 0 (0%) 2 (3%)
Swelling 1 (2%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%)
Sensitive skin 0 (0%) 1 (2%) 0 (0%)

All randomized participants Control Needle Laser Sham

(n=71) (n=70) (n=71) laser
(n=70)
Medication use at 12 weeks,a n
(%)
Analgesics 25 (37%) 21 (35%) 17 (27%) 21 (37%)
NSAIDs 14 (21%) 10 (17%) 8 (13%) 12 (21%)
COX-2 inhibitors 1 (1%) 4 (7%) 4 (6%) 1 (2%)
Opioids 1 (1%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%)
Glucosamine 13 (19%) 12 (20%) 8 (13%) 11 (19%)
Fish oil 11 (16%) 8 (13%) 7 (11%) 11 (19%)
Co-interventions at 12 weeks,b n
(%)
Physical therapy 2 (3%) 1 (2%) 7 (11%) 0 (0%)
Surgery 2 (3%) 2 (3%) 0 (0%) 2 (4%)
Acupuncture 2 (3%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%)
Exercise 12 (18%) 7 (12%) 5 (8%) 7 (12%)
Hydrotherapy 1 (1%) 3 (5%) 1 (2%) 2 (4%)
Medication use at 1 year,a n (%)
Analgesics 20 (29%) 17 (28%) 20 (31%) 22 (29%)
NSAIDs 12 (18%) 8 (13%) 14 (22%) 6 (11%)
COX-2 inhibitors 1 (1%) 2 (3%) 2 (3%) 3 (5%)
Opioids 1 (1%) 0 (0%) 1 (2%) 0 (0%)
Glucosamine 9 (13%) 9 (15%) 8 (13%) 6 (11%)
Fish oil 10 (15%) 7 (12%) 7 (11%) 7 (12%)
Co-interventions at 1 year,c n (%)
Physical therapy 10 (15%) 5 (8%) 6 (9%) 5 (9%)
Surgery 4 (6%) 5 (8%) 3 (5%) 5 (9%)
Acupuncture 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 1 (2%)
Exercise 12 (18%) 12 (20%) 7 (11%) 8 (14%)
Hydrotherapy 2 (3%) 1 (2%) 4 (6%) 4 (7%)
a b
defined as medications purchased over previous 4 weeks for knee pain; defined as treatments sought for knee pain over
c
previous 12 weeks; defined as treatments sought for knee pain over previous 9 months; NSAID= non-steroidal anti-
inflammatory drugs; COX-2= cyclooxygenase-2.

2014 American Medical Association. All rights reserved.

Downloaded From: http://jamanetwork.com/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/journals/jama/930916/ on 05/07/2017



eTable 4: Blinding to laser and sham laser acupuncture, recorded after the
first treatment by participants and acupuncturists
Participants Acupuncturists
Laser acupuncture (n=59)
Correctly identified 16 (30%) 8 (16%)
Incorrectly identified 3 (6%) 3 (6%)
Unsure 35 (65%) 39 (78%)
Sham laser acupuncture (n=61)
Correctly identified 5 (9%) 3 (6%)
Incorrectly identified 16 (29%) 7 (14%)
Unsure 34 (62%) 40 (80%)
NOTE- there was some missing data from participants and acupuncturists across both groups.

2014 American Medical Association. All rights reserved.

Downloaded From: http://jamanetwork.com/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/journals/jama/930916/ on 05/07/2017



eTable 5: Estimated differences between arms at 12 weeks using complete case analysis
Compared to control group Other planned contrasts
Needles Laser Sham laser Needles vs Laser Needles vs Sham laser Laser vs Sham laser
Estimate P Estimate P Estimate P Estimate P Estimate P Estimate P
(95% CI) (95% CI) (95% CI) (95% CI) (95% CI) (95% CI)
PRIMARY
Overall paina 1.2 (1.9, 0.5) 0.001 0.9 (1.6, 0.1) 0.02 0.9 (1.7, 0.2) 0.01 0.4 (1.1, 0.3) 0.32 0.3 (1.0, 0.4) 0.45 0.1 (0.7, 0.8) 0.84
WOMAC functiona 4.4 (7.7, 1.1) 0.009 2.1 (5.2, 1.1) 0.20 2.6 (6.1, 1.0) 0.16 2.3 (5.5, 0.8) 0.14 1.9 (5.4, 1.7) 0.30 0.5 (2.9, 3.9) 0.77

SECONDARY
Pain on walkinga 1.3 (2.0, 0.6) <0.001 0.7 (1.4, 0.1) 0.07 0.8 (1.6, 0.1) 0.04 0.6 (1.4, 0.1) 0.09 0.5 (1.3, 0.3) 0.21 0.2 (0.7, 1.0) 0.72
Pain on standinga 1.0 (1.7, 0.3) 0.008 0.4 (1.2, 0.3) 0.28 1.1 (1.8, 0.3) 0.005 0.5 (1.3, 0.2) 0.16 0.1 (0.6, 0.9) 0.76 0.7 (0.2, 1.4) 0.11
Activity restrictiona 1.0 (1.7, 0.2) 0.01 1.0 (1.7, 0.2) 0.01 1.3 (2.2, 0.5) 0.001 0.0 (0.8, 0.8) 0.98 0.4 (0.5, 1.2) 0.37 0.4 (0.4, 1.2) 0.36
WOMAC paina 1.5 (2.6, 0.4) 0.01 1.0 (2.1, 0.1) 0.08 1.2 (2.4, 0.1) 0.04 0.5 (1.6, 0.7) 0.41 0.2 (1.4, 1.0) 0.73 0.3 (1.0, 1.5) 0.68
AQoL6Db 0.01 (0.03, 0.67 0.00 (0.04, 0.03) 0.97 0.01 (0.02, 0.46 0.01 (0.03, 0.05) 0.66 0.00 (0.04, 0.89 0.01 (0.05, 0.48
0.05) 0.04) 0.04) 0.02)
SF12 PCSb 3.1 (0.2, 5.9) 0.04 1.0 (1.8, 3.8) 0.48 1.4 (1.5, 4.3) 0.34 2.1 (0.7, 4.8) 0.14 1.7 (1.2, 4.5) 0.26 0.4 (3.2, 2.4) 0.77
SF12 MCSb 1.5 (4.5, 1.5) 0.33 1.0 (3.7, 1.6) 0.46 0.3 (3.4, 2.7) 0.83 0.5 (3.3, 2.3) 0.73 1.2 (4.3, 2.0) 0.47 0.7 (3.5, 2.1) 0.64
aNegative values indicate better (adjusted) mean in that (first named) group compared with comparison group; bPositive values indicate better (adjusted) mean in that

(first named) group compared with comparison group; WOMAC= Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index; AQoL6D= Assessment of Quality of
Life instrument version 2; SF12=12item Short Form Health Survey; PCS= physical component summary; MCS= mental component summary.

2014 American Medical Association. All rights reserved.

Downloaded From: http://jamanetwork.com/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/journals/jama/930916/ on 05/07/2017



eTable 6: Estimated differences between arms at 1 year using complete case analysis
Compared to control group Other planned contrasts
Needles Laser Sham laser Needles vs Laser Needles vs Sham laser Laser vs Sham laser
Estimate P Estimate P Estimate P Estimate P Estimate P Estimate P
(95% CI) (95% CI) (95% CI) (95% CI) (95% CI) (95% CI)
PRIMARY
Overall paina 0.8 (1.7, 0.1) 0.07 0.6 (1.4, 0.3) 0.20 0.7 (1.6, 0.2) 0.12 0.2 (1.1, 0.6) 0.60 0.1 (1.0, 0.8) 0.82 0.1 (0.7, 1.0) 0.77
WOMAC function a 5.1 (9.3, 0.9) 0.02 2.2 (6.2, 1.8) 0.29 3.4 (7.4, 0.7) 0.10 2.9 (7.2, 1.4) 0.18 1.7 (6.0, 2.6) 0.43 1.2 (3.0, 5.3) 0.57

SECONDARY
Pain on walkinga 0.7 (1.7, 0.2) 0.13 0.4 (1.2, 0.5) 0.40 0.5 (1.4, 0.4) 0.28 0.4 (1.3, 0.6) 0.46 0.3 (1.2, 0.7) 0.60 0.1 (0.8, 1.0) 0.81
Pain on standing a 0.6 (1.5, 0.3) 0.16 0.1 (0.9, 0.7) 0.81 0.7 (1.6, 0.2) 0.13 0.5 (1.5, 0.4) 0.26 0.0 (0.9, 1.0) 0.93 0.6 (0.4, 1.5) 0.22
Activity restrictiona 1.1 (2.1, 0.2) 0.02 0.5 (1.4, 0.4) 0.25 0.6 (1.4, 0.3) 0.21 0.6 (1.6, 0.3) 0.20 0.6 (1.5, 0.3) 0.22 0.0 (0.9, 0.9) 0.94
WOMAC pain a 1.6 (2.9, 0.2) 0.02 0.7 (2.0, 0.6) 0.29 1.2 (2.5, 0.0) 0.05 0.9 (2.2, 0.5) 0.21 0.3 (1.6, 1.0) 0.62 0.5 (0.8, 1.8) 0.41
AQoL6Db 0.01 (0.03, 0.05) 0.56 0.00 (0.04, 0.04) 0.89 0.01 (0.03, 0.04) 0.80 0.01 (0.03, 0.05) 0.65 0.01 (0.03, 0.05) 0.71 0.00 (0.04, 0.04) 0.92
SF12 PCSb 4.8 (1.4, 8.3) 0.006 1.4 (1.9, 4.7) 0.41 0.3 (3.0, 3.6) 0.85 3.4 (0.3, 6.6) 0.03 4.5 (1.4, 7.7) 0.005 1.1 (1.9, 4.1) 0.48
SF12 MCS b 0.9 (4.6, 2.7) 0.62 1.2 (4.7, 2.3) 0.51 0.5 (3.1, 4.2) 0.78 0.3 (2.9, 3.4) 0.87 1.5 (4.7, 1.8) 0.38 1.7 (4.9, 1.4) 0.28
aNegative values indicate better (adjusted) mean in that (first named) group compared with comparison group; bPositive values indicate better (adjusted) mean in that

(first named) group compared with comparison group; WOMAC= Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index; AQoL6D= Assessment of Quality of
Life instrument version 2; SF12=12item Short Form Health Survey; PCS= physical component summary; MCS= mental component summary.

2014 American Medical Association. All rights reserved.

Downloaded From: http://jamanetwork.com/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/journals/jama/930916/ on 05/07/2017



eTable 7: Estimated differences between arms at 12 weeks when analyzed as-treated

Compared to control group Other planned contrasts
Needles Laser Sham laser Needles vs Laser Needles vs Sham Laser vs Sham
laser laser
Estimate P Estimate P Estimate P Estimate P Estimate P Estimate P
(95% CI) (95% CI) (95% CI) (95% CI) (95% CI) (95% CI)
PRIMARY
Overall paina -1.5 (-2.1, - <0.001 -1.0 (-1.7, - 0.007 -1.2 (-1.9, - 0.001 -0.5 (-1.2, 0.18 -0.3 (-1.0, 0.49 0.2 (-0.5, 0.55
0.8) 0.3) 0.5) 0.2) 0.5) 1.0)
a
WOMAC function -4.4 (-7.6, - 0.007 -3.0 (-6.1, 0.06 -3.6 (-6.9, - 0.03 -1.4 (-4.9, 0.43 -0.8 (-4.5, 0.66 0.6 (-3.1, 0.75
1.2) 0.1) 0.3) 2.1) 2.9) 4.2)

SECONDARY
Pain on walkinga -1.4 (-2.1, - <0.001 -0.9 (-1.6, - 0.02 -1.1 (-1.9, - 0.004 -0.5 (-1.3, 0.17 -0.3 (-1.1, 0.47 0.2 (-0.6, 0.58
0.7) 0.1) 0.4) 0.2) 0.5) 1.1)
Pain on standinga -1.2 (-1.8, - 0.001 -0.7 (-1.4, 0.09 -1.4 (-2.1, - <0.001 -0.5 (-1.3, 0.20 0.2 (-0.5, 0.51 0.8 (-0.1, 0.07
0.5) 0.1) 0.7) 0.3) 1.0) 1.6)
Activity restrictiona -1.3 (-2.0, - 0.001 -1.2 (-1.9, - 0.001 -1.6 (-2.4, - <0.001 0.0 (-0.8, 0.94 0.4 (-0.5, 0.42 0.4 (-0.5, 0.37
0.5) 0.5) 0.8) 0.8) 1.2) 1.2)
WOMAC paina -1.6 (-2.6, - 0.005 -1.1 (-2.3, 0.05 -1.6 (-2.7, - 0.005 -0.4 (-1.7, 0.52 0.0 (-1.2, 0.99 0.4 (-0.9, 0.52
0.5) 0.0) 0.5) 0.9) 1.3) 1.7)
AQoL-6Db 0.01 (-0.03, 0.57 0.00 (-0.03, 0.88 0.01 (-0.02, 0.44 0.01 (-0.04, 0.70 0.00 (-0.05, 0.99 -0.01 (-0.05, 0.64
0.06) 0.04) 0.04) 0.06) 0.05) 0.03)
SF-12- PCSb 2.5 (-0.2, 0.07 0.9 (-1.9, 0.52 1.8 (-0.9, 0.19 1.6 (-1.3, 0.28 0.7 (-2.2, 0.62 -0.9 (-3.8, 0.55
5.3) 3.7) 4.5) 4.6) 3.6) 2.1)
SF-12- MCSb 1.2 (-1.8, 0.44 0.8 (-1.8, 0.54 0.8 (-2.1, 0.59 0.3 (-2.5, 0.81 0.4 (-2.8, 0.82 0.0 (-2.9, 0.99
4.1) 3.5) 3.7) 3.2) 3.5) 2.9)
a b
Negative values indicate better (adjusted) mean in that (first named) group compared with comparison group; Positive values indicate better (adjusted) mean in that (first
named) group compared with comparison group; WOMAC= Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index; AQoL-6D= Assessment of Quality of Life instrument
version 2; SF-12=12-item Short Form Health Survey; PCS= physical component summary; MCS= mental component summary.

2014 American Medical Association. All rights reserved.

Downloaded From: http://jamanetwork.com/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/journals/jama/930916/ on 05/07/2017



eTable 8: Estimated differences between arms at 1 year when analyzed as-treated

Compared to control group Other planned contrasts
Needles Laser Sham laser Needles vs Laser Needles vs Sham Laser vs Sham laser
laser
Estimate P Estimate P Estimate P Estimate P Estimate P Estimate P
(95% CI) (95% CI) (95% CI) (95% CI) (95% CI) (95% CI)
PRIMARY
Overall paina -0.7 (-1.5, 0.12 -0.7 (-1.5, 0.10 -0.7 (-1.6, 0.09 0.0 (-1.0, 1.0) 0.99 0.1 (-0.9, 1.0) 0.91 0.1 (-0.9, 1.0) 0.91
0.2) 0.1) 0.1)
a
WOMAC function -3.2 (-7.4, 0.14 -2.3 (-6.4, 0.26 -3.1 (-7.1, 0.13 -0.8 (-5.5, 0.73 -0.1 (-4.7, 0.98 0.8 (-3.8, 5.3) 0.74
1.1) 1.7) 0.9) 3.9) 4.6)

SECONDARY
Pain on walkinga -0.4 (-1.4, 0.43 -0.3 (-1.1, 0.56 -0.5 (-1.3, 0.29 -0.1 (-1.2, 0.80 0.1 (-1.0, 1.1) 0.90 0.2 (-0.8, 1.2) 0.69
0.6) 0.6) 0.4) 0.9)
Pain on standinga -0.5 (-1.4, 0.29 -0.1 (-1.0, 0.79 -0.7 (-1.5, 0.14 -0.4 (-1.4, 0.46 0.2 (-0.9, 1.2) 0.79 0.5 (-0.4, 1.5) 0.28
0.4) 0.7) 0.2) 0.6)
Activity restrictiona -0.8 (-1.7, 0.09 -0.9 (-1.7, - 0.04 -1.0 (-1.9, - 0.02 0.1 (-0.9, 1.1) 0.85 0.2 (-0.8, 1.3) 0.64 0.2 (-0.8, 1.1) 0.76
0.1) 0.1) 0.2)
WOMAC paina -1.2 (-2.6, 0.07 -0.7 (-2.0, 0.28 -1.2 (-2.4, 0.05 -0.5 (-2.0, 0.50 0.0 (-1.5, 1.4) 0.95 0.5 (-0.9, 1.9) 0.51
0.1) 0.6) 0.0) 1.0)
AQoL-6Db 0.01 (-0.04, 0.76 0.00 (-0.04, 0.92 0.01 (-0.02, 0.40 0.01 (-0.04, 0.72 -0.01 (-0.05, 0.73 -0.02 (-0.06, 0.44
0.05) 0.04) 0.05) 0.06) 0.04) 0.03)
SF-12- PCSb 4.8 (1.0, 8.5) 0.01 1.7 (-1.7, 5.2) 0.32 1.8 (-1.7, 5.3) 0.32 3.0 (-0.4, 6.5) 0.08 3.0 (-0.6, 6.6) 0.10 -0.1 (-3.4, 0.97
3.2)
SF-12- MCSb -0.5 (-4.1, 0.78 -1.3 (-4.8, 0.45 1.0 (-2.4, 4.5) 0.56 0.8 (-2.7, 4.3) 0.64 -1.5 (-5.1, 0.40 -2.4 (-5.9, 0.18
3.1) 2.1) 2.0) 1.1)
a b
Negative values indicate better (adjusted) mean in that (first named) group compared with comparison group; Positive values indicate better (adjusted) mean in that
(first named) group compared with comparison group; WOMAC= Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index; AQoL-6D= Assessment of Quality
of Life instrument version 2; SF-12=12-item Short Form Health Survey; PCS= physical component summary; MCS= mental component summary.

2014 American Medical Association. All rights reserved.

Downloaded From: http://jamanetwork.com/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/journals/jama/930916/ on 05/07/2017



eTable 9: Estimated differences between each acupuncture group compared to control at 12 weeks (with multiple
imputation for missing data) in the hypothetical scenario of full adherence to the randomized intervention
Needles Laser Sham laser
Estimate (95% CI) P Estimate (95% CI) P Estimate (95% CI) P
PRIMARY
Overall paina -1.5 (-2.4, -0.6) 0.002 -1.0 (-1.9, -0.1) 0.03 -1.0 (-2.1, 0.1) 0.07
WOMAC functiona -5.4 (-10.2, -0.7) 0.03 -2.1 (-6.3, 2.1) 0.32 -3.0 (-8.4, 2.5) 0.29

SECONDARY
Pain on walkinga -1.7 (-2.6, -0.7) 0.001 -0.8 (-1.7, 0.2) 0.11 -1.0 (-2.2, 0.2) 0.09
Pain on standing a -1.1 (-2.0, -0.1) 0.03 -0.5 (-1.5, 0.4) 0.27 -1.2 (-2.3, 0.0) 0.05
Activity restrictiona -1.2 (-2.2, -0.2) 0.02 -1.1 (-2.1, -0.1) 0.03 -1.4 (-2.7, -0.2) 0.03
WOMAC paina -1.6 (-3.1, -0.1) 0.04 -1.2 (-2.7, 0.2) 0.09 -1.4 (-3.2, 0.4) 0.13
AQoL-6Db -0.01 (-0.07, 0.06) 0.78 0.00 (-0.05, 0.06) 0.94 0.00 (-0.06, 0.07) 0.92
SF-12- PCSb 3.8 (-0.3, 7.9) 0.07 1.1 (-2.7, 4.8) 0.58 1.5 (-3.8, 6.7) 0.58
SF-12- MCSb -2.7 (-7.1, 1.6) 0.22 -1.5 (-5.2, 2.1) 0.41 -1.5 (-6.6, 3.6) 0.56
aNegative values indicate better mean in that (first named) group compared with comparison group; bPositive values indicate better mean in that (first named) group compared with

comparison group; WOMAC= Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index; AQoL6D= Assessment of Quality of Life instrument version 2; SF12=12item Short Form
Health Survey; PCS= physical component summary; MCS= mental component summary.

2014 American Medical Association. All rights reserved.

Downloaded From: http://jamanetwork.com/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/journals/jama/930916/ on 05/07/2017



eTable 10: Estimated differences between each acupuncture group compared to control at 1 year (with multiple
imputation for missing data) in the hypothetical scenario of full adherence to the randomized intervention
Needles Laser Sham laser
Estimate (95% CI) P Estimate (95% CI) P Estimate (95% CI) P
PRIMARY
Overall paina -0.9 (-2.1, 0.3) 0.13 -0.7 (-1.9, 0.4) 0.19 -0.9 (-2.3, 0.5) 0.22
WOMAC functiona -4.9 (-10.5, 0.7) 0.09 -0.7 (-6.1, 4.7) 0.79 -2.5 (-10.4, 5.5) 0.54

SECONDARY
Pain on walkinga -0.7 (-2.0, 0.6) 0.28 -0.3 (-1.5, 0.8) 0.57 -0.5 (-1.9, 1.0) 0.52
Pain on standing a -0.6 (-1.8, 0.6) 0.34 -0.2 (-1.4, 1.0) 0.74 -0.9 (-2.4, 0.7) 0.27
Activity restrictiona -1.4 (-2.6, -0.2) 0.02 -0.6 (-1.7, 0.6) 0.34 -0.6 (-2.0, 0.9) 0.44
WOMAC paina -1.7 (-3.5, 0.0) 0.05 -0.5 (-2.2, 1.3) 0.58 -0.5 (-3.3, 2.2) 0.69
AQoL-6Db -0.02 (-0.09, 0.06) 0.69 0.01 (-0.05, 0.07) 0.82 -0.01 (-0.11, 0.09) 0.86
SF-12- PCSb 3.4 (-1.7, 8.4) 0.19 -0.5 (-5.2, 4.3) 0.85 -0.9 (-6.6, 4.8) 0.76
SF-12- MCSb -0.9 (-6.3, 4.4) 0.73 -1.0 (-6.3, 4.4) 0.73 -0.6 (-8.2, 7.0) 0.87
aNegative values indicate better mean in that (first named) group compared with comparison group; bPositive values indicate better mean in that (first named) group compared with

comparison group; WOMAC= Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index; AQoL6D= Assessment of Quality of Life instrument version 2; SF12=12item Short Form
Health Survey; PCS= physical component summary; MCS= mental component summary.

2014 American Medical Association. All rights reserved.

Downloaded From: http://jamanetwork.com/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/journals/jama/930916/ on 05/07/2017



eTable 11: Number (percentage) of participants reporting global improvement and estimated odds ratios (OR)
from mixed effects regression models (complete case analysis)
Number (%) improved Compared to control group Other planned contrasts
Control Needles Laser Sham Needles Laser Sham laser Needles vs Needles vs Laser vs
laser Laser Sham laser Sham
laser
a
Improvement in OR (95% CI) OR (95% CI) OR (95% CI) OR (95% CI) OR (95% CI) OR (95%
CI)
12 weeks n=68 n=63 n=65 n=57
Pain 22 (32%) 48 (76%) 42 (65%) 41 (72%) 6.7 (3.1, 3.8 (1.9, 5.4 (2.5, 1.8 (0.8, 3.8) 1.3 (0.6, 2.8) 0.7 (0.3,
14.5)*** 7.8)*** 11.6)*** 1.5)
Function 21 (31%) 42 (67%) 38 (58%) 38 (67%) 4.5 (2.2, 3.2 (1.5, 4.5 (2.1, 1.4 (0.7, 2.9) 1.0 (0.5, 2.1) 0.7 (0.3,
9.3)*** 6.4)** 9.5)*** 1.5)
Overall 22 (32%) 48 (76%) 40 (62%) 37 (65%) 6.7 (3.1, 3.4 (1.6, 3.9 (1.8, 2.0 (0.9, 4.3) 1.7 (0.8, 3.8) 0.9 (0.4,
14.5)*** 6.8)** 8.1)*** 1.8)

1 year n=60 n=57 n=57 n=51

Pain 12 (20%) 28 (49%) 30 (53%) 24 (47%) 3.9 (1.7, 4.4 (2.0, 3.6 (1.5, 0.9 (0.4, 1.8) 1.1 (0.5, 2.3) 1.3 (0.6,
8.8)** 10.1)*** 8.2)** 2.7)
Function 10 (17%) 28 (49%) 26 (46%) 21 (41%) 4.8 (2.1, 4.2 (1.8, 3.5 (1.5, 1.2 (0.6, 2.4) 1.4 (0.6, 3.0) 1.2 (0.6,
11.4)*** 9.9)** 8.4)** 2.6)
Overall 12 (20%) 28 (49%) 29 (51%) 25 (49%) 3.9 (1.7, 4.1 (1.8, 3.9 (1.7, 0.9 (0.5, 1.9) 1.0 (0.5, 2.1) 1.1 (0.5,
8.8)** 9.4)** 8.9)** 2.3)
a
participants who rated themselves as much better or slightly better on a 5-point ordinal scale (ranging from much worse to much better); **P<0.01;***P<0.001.

2014 American Medical Association. All rights reserved.

Downloaded From: http://jamanetwork.com/pdfaccess.ashx?url=/data/journals/jama/930916/ on 05/07/2017