Skip to main content
. 2023 Jun;20(3):183–192. doi: 10.36131/cnfioritieditore20230303

Table 2.

Comparison of CGI scale between treatment group at baseline and the end of treatment

Variables Starter Add-on Monotherapy Total sample
n= 10 (20%) n= 29 (58%) n= 11(22%) n=50
CGI-S baseline 4.0± 0.66 4.13±0.63 3.8±0.87 4.04±0.69
CGI-S end of treatment 1.7±0.94 2.75±1.2 2.27±1.34 2.44±1.24
CGI-I end of treatment 1.5±0.7* 2.48±0.98 2.1±1.13 2.2±1.03
Global Improvement (y/n) 10 (100%), 0 (0%) 24 (82.8%); 5 (17.2%) 9 (81.8%); 2 (18.2%) 43 (86%); 7 (14%)
Global Improvement
Very much improved 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%)
Much improved 6 (40%) 5 (33.3%) 4 (26.7%) 15 (30%)
Minimally improved 4 (14.3%) 19 (67.9%) 5 (17.3%) 28 (56%)
No change from baseline 0 (0%) 5(71.4%) 2 (28.6%) 7 (14%)
Minimally worse 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%)
Much worse 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%)
Very much worse 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%)

Notes: Values for categorical and continuous variables are expressed in percentages and mean ± SD, respectively. CGI-S: Clinical Global Impression-Severity; CGI-I: Clinical Global Impression-Improvement. Boldface indicates parameters with statistically significant differences between subgroups. **p<0.001 *p<0.05