Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2014 May 15.
Published in final edited form as: Biol Psychiatry. 2013 Feb 26;73(10):1008–1014. doi: 10.1016/j.biopsych.2013.01.016

Table 3.

Endpoint analyses of outcome variables (following 15 sessions) eliminating patients for whom motor threshold could not be consistently detected1

Outcome variable mean (standard error)4 PGroup effect Estimated effect size (95% CI)5
Sham N=21 Active N=48
HCS2 (primary) 8.37 (0.76) 6.55 (0.48) 0.044 0.54 (0.02 – 1.06)
Hallucination frequency difference3 −0.06 (0.37) −1.31 (0.24) 0.005 0.74 (0.23 – 1.26)
Total AHRS Difference3 −1.90 (1.16) −4.11 (0.76) 0.11 0.42
CGI2 3.58 (0.29) 2.73 (0.18) 0.013 0.67 (0.14 – 1.18)
1

Model includes group and site (W versus rW, corresponding to optimal response); based on data collected after the third 5-session block, with multiple imputations used for missing data

2

Lower scores correspond to greater improvement; all HCS were 10 at baseline; no baseline for CGI, scores range from 1 to 7, with 4 = no change.

3

Difference = baseline − endpoint; lower scores correspond to greater improvement

4

Model-based least-square means and standard errors

5

95% confidence intervals provided for comparisons with p <0.05