Effects of auricular acupressure on chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in breast cancer patients: a preliminary randomized controlled trial

Table 3 Differences in the MAT total and domain scores among the study groups

MAT Outcomes ^a	True AA		Sham AA		Standard Care		Kruskal–Wallis H Test		Effect Size
MAT Outcomes ^a	n ^b	Mean/SD/SE/Median [95% CI]	n	Mean/SD/SE/Median [95% CI]	n	Mean/SD/SE/Median [95% CI]	Value	p	η²
MAT overall total	37	5.8/5.5/0.9/4.0 [3.9–7.6]	38	7.9/7.3/1.2/5.5 [5.5–10.4]	38	12.2/9.1/1.5/11 [9.2–15.2]	11.09	0.004	0.10
MAT total nausea	37	4.2/3.9/0.6/4.0 [2.9–5.5]	38	5.6/4.8/0.8/5.0 [4.1–7.2]	38	8.4/5.8/0.9/8.0 [6.6–10.3]	11.86	0.003	0.11
MAT total vomiting	37	1.6/2.6/0.4/0.0 [0.7–2.5]	38	2.3/3.6/0.6/0.0 [1.1–3.5]	38	3.8/4.8/0.8/2.0 [2.2–5.3]	4.47	0.11	0.04
MAT acute CINV	38	2.5/3.1/0.5/0.0 [1.5–3.5]	38	3.9/4.3/0.7/3.5 [2.5–5.4]	38	6.2/4.8/0.8/6.0 [4.7–7.8]	12.28	0.002	0.11
MAT acute nausea	38	1.9/2.3/0.4/0.0 [1.2–2.7]	38	2.9/2.9/0.5/3.5 [2.0–3.8]	38	4.7/3.5/0.6/5.0 [3.5–5.8]	14.38	0.001	0.13
MAT acute vomiting	38	0.6/1.4/0.2/0.0 [0.1–1.1]	38	1.1/2.0/0.3/0.0 [0.4–1.7]	38	1.6/2.2/0.4/0.0 [0.8–2.3]	5.44	0.07	0.05
MAT delayed CINV	37	3.2/3.6/0.6/2.0 [2.0–4.4]	38	4.0/4.7/0.8/3.0 [2.5–5.5]	38	6.0/5.8/0.9/5.0 [4.1–7.9]	4.27	0.12	0.04
MAT delayed nausea	37	2.2/2.5/0.4/2.0 [1.4–3.0]	38	2.7/2.8/0.5/3.0 [1.8–3.7]	38	3.8/3.4/0.6/3.5 [2.6–4.9]	4.23	0.12	0.04
MAT delayed vomiting	37	1.0/1.8/0.3/0.0 [0.4–1.6]	38	1.3/2.5/0.4/0.0 [0.4–2.1]	38	2.2/3.2/0.5/0.0 [1.2–3.3]	3.39	0.18	0.03

This table is derived and modified from the original PhD thesis of Professor Jing-Yu (Benjamin) Tan [Tan, J. (2017). Effects of auricular acupressure on chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in breast cancer patients: a preliminary randomized controlled trial. Doctoral dissertation, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong.] [28]
MAT MASCC Antiemesis Tool
^afor MAT total scale and different symptom domains, a higher score indicates more severe nausea and/or vomiting; AA auricular acupressure
^bone participant from the true AT group dropped out during the delayed CINV assessment. ITT analysis using the acute phase data as the delayed outcomes is not appropriate here because the delayed CINV symptom is different from acute CINV symptom in nature. No ITT approach was utilized in this analysis; therefore, the available sample size for computing the MAT overall total, MAT total nausea, MAT total vomiting, MAT delayed CINV, MAT delayed nausea, and MAT delayed vomiting scores in the true AT group was 37; SD standard deviation, SE standard error, CI confidence interval, CINV chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting

ISSN: 2662-7671