번역 부탁드려용
-
게시물 수정 , 삭제는 로그인 필요
Statistical Analyses
All statistical analyses were performed using SPSS software (version 23). The Shapiro-Wilk test was used to assess normality. The FRP, posture, pain, strength, and proprioception outcomes were then subjected to separate 2 × 2 multivariate analyses of variance to determine the effect of group (SSE or SSE + ACF) and time (pretest or posttest). Independent analyses of variance were conducted for the outcomes because of weak intravariable correlations. Paired-samples t tests were used to assess differences in change scores within groups significantly. The alpha level was P > 0.05. Effect sizes and 95% CIs were then calculated to provide a measure of clinical meaningfulness. Between-group effect sizes were calculated and were interpreted according to Cohen’s d (small ≤0.4, medium = 0.41- 0.7, large ≥0.70).
Results
No adverse effects were seen during the study.
Pain and Proprioception
Favoring group 2, there were significant differences between experimental groups in pain (0.58*, P = 0.036) and proprioception error (0.51*, P = 0.034) after 6 weeks. Both experimental groups demonstrated significant within-group decreases in pain (group 1, −3.8 ± 0.48, P = 0.021* and group 2, −4.3 ± 0.23, P = 0.001*) and in proprioception error (group 1, −2.5 ± 0.2, P = 0.033* and group 2, −3.3 ± 0.2, P = 0.002*). No significant changes were seen in pain (−0.2 ± 0.55, P = 0.098) and in proprioception (−0.1 ± 0.2, P = 0.103) in the control group (Table 2). (Asterisks indicate a significant difference.)
All statistical analyses were performed using SPSS software (version 23). The Shapiro-Wilk test was used to assess normality. The FRP, posture, pain, strength, and proprioception outcomes were then subjected to separate 2 × 2 multivariate analyses of variance to determine the effect of group (SSE or SSE + ACF) and time (pretest or posttest). Independent analyses of variance were conducted for the outcomes because of weak intravariable correlations. Paired-samples t tests were used to assess differences in change scores within groups significantly. The alpha level was P > 0.05. Effect sizes and 95% CIs were then calculated to provide a measure of clinical meaningfulness. Between-group effect sizes were calculated and were interpreted according to Cohen’s d (small ≤0.4, medium = 0.41- 0.7, large ≥0.70).
Results
No adverse effects were seen during the study.
Pain and Proprioception
Favoring group 2, there were significant differences between experimental groups in pain (0.58*, P = 0.036) and proprioception error (0.51*, P = 0.034) after 6 weeks. Both experimental groups demonstrated significant within-group decreases in pain (group 1, −3.8 ± 0.48, P = 0.021* and group 2, −4.3 ± 0.23, P = 0.001*) and in proprioception error (group 1, −2.5 ± 0.2, P = 0.033* and group 2, −3.3 ± 0.2, P = 0.002*). No significant changes were seen in pain (−0.2 ± 0.55, P = 0.098) and in proprioception (−0.1 ± 0.2, P = 0.103) in the control group (Table 2). (Asterisks indicate a significant difference.)
