Skip to main content

Table 3 General walking ability

From: The efficacy of treadmill training with and without projected visual context for improving walking ability and reducing fall incidence and fear of falling in older adults with fall-related hip fracture: a randomized controlled trial

Outcome (n: AT, CT, UPT)

INTERVENTION

Difference among groups

Mixed RM ANOVA T0, T1, T2

Ā 

AT

CT

UPT

P value

Effect size

(Ī·p2)

Time effect

Group effect

Time Ɨ Group

POMA (0ā€“28)

ā€‚T0 (19, 17, 21)

15.5 Ā± 2.9

15.6 Ā± 3.2

15.6 Ā± 4.4

0.997a

0.000

F (2)=83.423

p<0.001

Ī·p2=0.635

F (2)=0.257

p=0.775

Ī·p2=0.011

F (3.3)=0.484

p=0.712

Ī·p2=0.020

ā€‚T1 (19, 17, 21)

19.4 Ā± 2.1

19.6 Ā± 2.0

18.6 Ā± 3.5

0.188b

0.061

ā€‚T2 (17, 17, 17)

20.2 Ā± 2.4

20.6 Ā± 3.8

19.5 Ā± 3.7

0.444b

0.034

ā€‚T3 (8, 12, 14)

22.4 Ā± 3.8

23.6 Ā± 3.5

23.1 Ā± 3.6

0.367b

0.065

EMS (0ā€“20)

ā€‚T0 (19, 17, 21)

11.2 Ā± 3.7

11.1 Ā± 3.3

10.7 Ā± 3.7

0.904a

0.004

F (2)=98.133

p<0.001

Ī·p2=0.672

F (2)=0.099

p=0.906

Ī·p2=0.004

F (2.9)=1.072

p=0.374

Ī·p2=0.043

ā€‚T1 (19, 17, 21)

15.3 Ā± 2.3

16.5 Ā± 1.5

15.2 Ā± 3.2

0.191b

0.061

ā€‚T2 (17, 17, 17)

16.2 Ā± 2.6

16.3 Ā± 2.4

16.3 Ā± 3.5

0.912b

0.004

ā€‚T3 (8, 12, 14)

17.1 Ā± 2.9

18.1 Ā± 1.8

17.6 Ā± 2.3

0.334b

0.070

TUG (s)

ā€‚T1 (19,17,21)

26.0 (13.5ā€“60.7)

23.7 (13.6ā€“48.9)

23.8 (13.3ā€“79.9)

0.862c

-

Z=āˆ’4.134d

p<0.001

r = 0.400

-

X2 (2)=3.835d

p=0.147

ā€‚T2 (17,17,17)

19.9 (11.9ā€“49.3)

23.6 (10.4ā€“88.9)

22.2 (10.4ā€“42.2)

0.871c

-

FAC (0ā€“5)

ā€‚T0 (19, 17, 21)

2.0 (2.0ā€“4.0)

2.0 (2.0ā€“4.0)

2.0 (2.0ā€“4.0)

0.110c

-

X2 (2)=81.0

p<0.001

-

-

ā€‚Ī”T1 (19, 17, 21)

1.0 (0.0ā€“2.0)

2.0 (1.0ā€“2.0)

1.0 (0.0ā€“2.0)

0.003 c

-

ā€‚Ī”T2 (17, 17, 17)

1.0 (0.0ā€“2.0)

2.0 (0.0ā€“3.0)

1.5 (0.0ā€“3.0)

0.039 c

-

ā€‚Ī”T3 (8, 12, 14)

1.5 (0.0ā€“3.0)

2.0 (1.0ā€“3.0)

2.0 (1.0ā€“3.0)

0.417c

-

Walking speed (m/s)

ā€‚T1 (19,17,21)

0.65 Ā± 0.22

0.74 Ā± 0.24

0.62 Ā± 0.20

0.219a

0.055

F (1)=7.421

p=0.009

Ī·p2=0.134

F (2)=0.369

p=0.693

Ī·p2=0.015

F (2)=3.053

p=0.057

Ī·p2=0.113

ā€‚T2 (17,17,17)

0.73 Ā± 0.20

0.72 Ā± 0.26

0.72 Ā± 0.25

0.984a

0.001

NEADL (0ā€“66)

ā€‚T0 (18, 17, 21)

44.2 Ā± 9.7

42.5 Ā± 13.2

49.6 Ā± 10.9

0.133a

0.073

F (1)=28.180

p<0.001

Ī·p2=0.370

F (2)=0.700

p=0.501

Ī·p2=0.028

F (2)=2.828

p=0.069

Ī·p2=0.105

ā€‚T2 (17, 17, 17)

32.2 Ā± 16.4

36.9 Ā± 15.2

33.4 Ā± 18.6

0.267b

0.055

ā€‚T3 (8, 12, 14)

42.9 Ā± 11.7

42.0 Ā± 12.1

43.4 Ā± 11.5

0.748b

0.019

  1. Measures related to mobility, walking and daily functioning in the adaptability treadmill (AT) group, conventional treadmill (CT) group and usual physical therapy (UPT) group at baseline (T0), directly after (T1), four weeks after (T2) and 12Ā months (T3) after the intervention
  2. P values for group differences were obtained using
  3. aOne-Way ANOVA
  4. bANCOVA with baseline performance as covariate
  5. cKruskal-Wallis test
  6. dThe effect of time was analyzed using Wilcoxon signed rank test and the Time Ɨ Group effect using Kruskal-Wallis test over the change score from T1 to T2.
  7. Ī” indicates change relative to baseline, which was evaluated over time using a Friedman test
  8. Significant differences among groups are presented in bold (p < 0.05)