Enhanced sensory conduction in primary fibromyalgia: a case–control pilot study

Table 3 Data of sensory conduction parameters for both patients with FM and controls

Variable		Mean ± SEM	T value	P value
Median SL	Patients with FM	2.31 ± 0.04	− 2.578	.012*
Median SL	Healthy controls	2.56 ± 0.11	− 2.578	.012*
Median SNAP Amp	Patients with FM	67.36 ± 2.61	3.839	.000*
Median SNAP Amp	Healthy controls	49.25 ± 2.60	3.839	.000*
Median Sensory CV	Patients with FM	62.02 ± 0.82	2.534	.013*
Median Sensory CV	Healthy controls	47.96 ± 1.32	2.534	.013*
Ulnar SL	Patients with FM	1.87 ± 0.03	− 2.999	.004*
Ulnar SL	Healthy controls	2.03 ± 0.05	− 2.999	.004*
Ulnar SNAP Amp	Patients with FM	65.35 ± 2.40	3.417	.000*
Ulnar SNAP Amp	Healthy controls	46.23 ± 2.97	3.417	.000*
Ulnar Sensory CV	Patients with FM	57.61 ± 0.90	3.992	.000*
Ulnar Sensory CV	Healthy controls	50.57 ± 1.51	3.992	.000*
Sural SL	Patients with FM	2.68 ± 0.05	− 1.496	.139
Sural SL	Healthy controls	2.69 ± 0.09	− 1.496	.139
Sural SNAP Amp	Patients with FM	20.78 ± 0.97	2.859	.005*
Sural SNAP Amp	Healthy controls	15.21 ± 1.75	2.859	.005*
Sural Sensory CV	Patients with FM	49.16 ± 1.03	2.260	.028*
Sural Sensory CV	Healthy controls	45.73 ± 1.11	2.260	.028*

Amp Amplitude, CV Conduction Velocity, SNAP Sensory Nerve Action Potential, SL Sensory Latency, *Significant