. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2014 Jan 1.

Published in final edited form as: Neurotoxicology. 2012 Sep 12;34:264–268. doi: 10.1016/j.neuro.2012.09.004

Table 2.

Log blood harmane concentration by group

Group	Median harmane concentration in g⁻¹⁰/ml	Mean ± S.D. log blood harmane concentration in g⁻¹⁰/ml

Controls	2.09	0.33 ± 0.39
Sporadic ET	2.41	0.35 ± 0.51
Familial ET	2.90	0.40 ± 0.42
	Kruskal-Wallis test_{df = 2} = 1.45, p = 0.48¹	ANOVA F_{df = 2} = 0.56, p = 0.58²

For comparison of familial ET vs. controls, Mann Whitney z = 1.26, p = 0.21.

For comparison of familial ET vs. controls, t = 1.13, p = 0.26.

In an unadjusted logistic regression analysis, log blood harmane concentration was not significantly associated with the outcome (familial ET vs. control) (OR = 1.56, 95% CI = 0.72 –3.36, p = 0.26). In a logistic regression analysis that adjusted for evaluation start time, the OR increased to 2.35, 95% CI = 1.002 – 5.53, p = 0.049. Also, including source (NEDICES vs. non-NEDICES) in the final model that also adjusted for evaluation start time, the OR increased to 2.65, 95% CI = 1.10 – 6.40, p = 0.03, indicating that accounting for this factor only enhanced the association.