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

Published in final edited form as: Contemp Clin Trials. 2013 Aug 31;36(2):414–420. doi: 10.1016/j.cct.2013.08.012

Table 4.

Odds Ratios for positive response in CBIT compared to PST across three classification methods

	CGI-Improvement Positive Response		Signal Detection Analysis^(a)		Response Model Dimensional Response
Intervention Group	Response N=72	Non-response N=160	Response N=88	Non-response N=144	Response N=83	Non-response N=149
CBIT	56 (47.9%)	61 (52.1%)	60 (51.3%)	57 (48.7%)	55 (47.0%)	62 (53.0%)
PST	16 (13.9%)	99 (86.1%)	28 (24.3%)	87 (75.6%)	28 (24.4%)	87 (75.6%)
Odds Ratio^(b)	5.68 (95%CI=2.99, 10.78)		13.27 (95% CI=1.87, 5.72)		2.76 (95% CI=1.57, 4.82)

^(a)

Signal Detection Analysis defined positive response as ≥ 25% reduction on YGTSS-TTS at Week 10.

^(b)

Odds Ratio reflects odds ratio for CBIT compared to PST without any adjustment (note: the odds ratios were not much different after adjusting for gender, age, medication, baseline YGTSS-TTS).