Short-term effectiveness of high- and low-intensity percutaneous electrolysis in patients with patellofemoral pain syndrome: A pilot study

Table 3 Subjective anterior knee pain perception

Variable	Time of measurement	HIPE	LIPE	DN	Mean difference	ANOVA interaction effect	Group: Bonferroni post-hoc analysis; time: Student t-test
VAS (0-10)	Pre	4.2 ± 0.5	4.5 ± 1.0	4.6 ± 1.3	0.3 (-1.6-2.1)1; 0.3 (-1.5-2.2)2; 0.1 (-1.8-1.9)3	F = 0.14; P = 0.868; η2 = 0.02	Group	NA
	7 d follow-up	2.9 ± 0.9	2.8 ± 0.7	3.2 ± 0.9	0.1 (-1.5-1.6)1; 0.3 (-1.2-1.9)2; 0.4 (-1.1-1.9)3	F = 0.30; P = 0.741; η2 = 0.05	Time	Follow up < pre, P < 0.054,5

¹High-intensity percutaneous electrolysis (HIPE) vs low-intensity percutaneous electrolysis (LIPE).

²HIPE vs dry needling (DN).

³LIPE vs DN.

⁴Simple within-group effects in the HIPE group.

⁵Simple within-group effects in the LIPE group.

VAS: Visual Analogue Scale; HIPE: High-intensity percutaneous electrolysis; LIPE: Low-intensity percutaneous electrolysis; DN: Dry needling; ANOVA: One-way analysis of variance.