Musculoskeletal ultrasonographic evaluation of perineural injection therapy versus therapeutic ultrasound in chronic lateral epicondylitis

Egyptian Rheumatology and Rehabilitation

Table 1 Comparison of demographic and clinical data between both patients’ groups

Demographic and clinical data	Group I, PNI therapy (N = 15)		Group II, TUS therapy (N = 15)		p value	Significance
	Mean	SD	Mean	SD
Age	44.40	10.45	47.80	10.76	0.39	NS^*
Disease duration (months)	11.80	7.62	17.60	15.65	0.21	NS^*
Median	12	7.62	11	15.65	0.21	NS^*
	N	%	N	%
Sex
Male	1	6.67	2	13.33	0.543	NS^¶
Female	14	93.33	13	86.67	0.543	NS^¶
Occupation
Manual	13	86.67	12	80	1	NS^¶
Non-manual	2	13.33	3	20	1	NS^¶
Dominant hand
Right	14	93.33	14	93.33	1	NS^•
Left	1	6.67	1	6.67	1	NS^•
Affected elbow
Right	9	0.60	8	0.53	0.713	NS^•
Left	6	0.40	7	0.47	0.713	NS^•
Cozen’s test
Positive	13	86.67	12	80	1	NS^•
Negative	2	13.33	3	20	1	NS^•
Mill’s test
Positive	10	66.67	11	73.33	1	NS^•
Negative	5	33.33	4	26.67	1	NS^•
Modsley’s test
Positive	9	0.60	8	0.53	0.713	NS^•
Negative	6	0.40	7	0.47	0.713	NS^•

Statistical methods used ^*Student t test, ^¶Chi-square test, and ^•Fisher exact test
The p value was considered non-significant (NS) if p > 0.05, significant (S) if p ≤ 0.05, highly significant (HS) if p ≤ 0.01, and very highly significant (HS) if p ≤ 0.001.
The table showed no significant difference in demographic and clinical data between both patients’ groups (p > 0.05)